Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
Chandu Sankara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Varikuti Siva Satyanarayana - Respondent
Second Appeal No: 332 of 2024
Decided On : 24-06-2026
For the Appellant : V V N Narayana Rao
For the Respondent: Nimmagadda Revathi
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable only when a substantial question of law is involved; concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with by the High Court in the absence of perversity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference - High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial court and first appellate court unless there is perversity or illegality - Mere appreciation of evidence does not raise a substantial question of law.
(B) Specific Relief - Specific Performance of Oral Agreement - Burden of proof - Plaintiff failed to prove existence of oral agreement and payment of sale consideration - Lack of documentary evidence or credible oral testimony renders claim unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of property, claiming to have paid Rs.70,000/- as consideration and having constructed a building on the premises. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit due to the appellant's failure to prove the agreement or the payment of consideration. The appellant challenged these concurrent findings in the present second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a valid oral agreement. Witnesses produced by the plaintiff lacked personal knowledge of the transaction, and the plaintiff failed to produce critical documentation, such as the legal notices mentioned in the plaint. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Issues: Whether the appellant established a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. Where concurrent findings of fact are based on objective assessment of evidence, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. The burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the contract.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed at the admission stage.
JUDGMENT :
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 31.10.2023, in A.S.No.43 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.12.2018 in O.S.No.147 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.147 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.147 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, with a prayer for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in pursuance of the oral agreement of sale dated 29.07.2009 in respect of the plaint schedule property by receiving the agreed amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) before the elders subsequent to the police complaint.
4. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, after conclusion of trial, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.147 of 2014 is as follows:
I. The defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and on 29.07.2009 he purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land from the defendant for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-. The plaintiff pleaded that, prior to the said transaction, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with his vendor, Sri Maddirala Venkata Subbarao @ Somasivarao of Ammapalem, in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was informed by the defendant that he had agreed to purchase the property from the said vendor for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- in December, 2008. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant offered to sell the said extent of Ac.0.20 cents to the plaintiff, representing that he was not interested in obtaining a registered sale deed in his favour. Believing the representations made by the defendant, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the defendant on 29.07.2009 in the presence of Sri Pamarthi Venkata Satyanarayana, Sri Kotaru Sambasiva Rao and Sri Dyvala Venkateswara Rao under an oral agreement of sale and as the parties were closely related, the plaintiff did not insist upon the execution of any written agreement or receipt evidencing the payment of sale consideration.
II. The plaintiff further pleaded that after the oral agreement of sale, he was put in possession of the property and, during the year 2009 itself, constructed an RCC residential building thereon by spending an amount of about Rs.12,00,000/-. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant, being a Civil Engineer, periodically supervised the construction undertaken by the plaintiff, thereby acknowledging the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff further pleaded that he had been repeatedly requesting the defendant to perform his part of the contract and execute a registered sale deed in his favour. However, the defendant allegedly postponed the matter on one pretext or another. Since the parties were close relatives, the plaintiff waited in the hope that the defendant would perform his part of contract and execute the sale deed. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant subsequently brought into
