The First Appellate Court is legally obligated under Order XLI Rule 31 of the C.P.C. to frame points for determination, conduct an independent assessment of evidence, and provide reasoned findings on both law and fact before disposing of an appeal.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023 on the file of the Court of learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in reversing the decree and judgment dated 31.03.2018 in O.S.No.112 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.5 and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.112 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interests towards compensation for acquisition of suit schedule land and for costs.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.126 of 2023 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal suit by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

6. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.112 of 2010, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and all his lands were acquired by the Government for special economic zone from the year 2007 onwards. The plaintiff pleaded that he was paid with compensation to some of the lands that were acquired and he did not receive any payment for the lands mentioned in the schedule and that he immediately protested for the same, but his protest was not considered. The plaintiff further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended with an amended plea that some of the lands left without adding in the plaint schedule and inspite of which the plaintiff mentioned the said lands in the schedule of pre-litigation matter, but due to the oversight and typographical mistake, the same is not mentioned, as such the suit is amended seeking recovery of compensation by showing those lands in the schedule No.IV acquired by the defendants. The plaintiff further pleaded that he filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre from the defendants jointly and severally at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for an extent of Ac.1.98 cents. Hence, the present suit.

7. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 remained ex-parte before the trial Court. The defendant No.5 filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.5 are as follows:

The defendants purchased an extent of wt land measuring Ac.0.19 cents in S.No.211/1, Ac.0.12 cents in S.No.211/2, Ac.0.17 cents in S.No.211/3, totaling Ac.0.48 cents situated at Cherugupalem Village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District from the plaintiff under the sale deed bearing No.1832, dated 25.10.2008, and an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- for dry land and Rs.3,00,000/- for wet lands. The defendant No.5 pleaded that the above said amount was paid to him through two cheques bearing No.004285, dat