1 of 18
APAN0F0001262025
Presented on : 30-06-2025 Registered on : 30-06-2025 Decided on : 06-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), PENUKONDA
Present: T. VASUDEVAN,
Civil Judge(Senior Division), Penukonda
Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026
APPEAL SUIT (AS) NO. 05 OF 2025
Between:
1. S.Ramachandrappa, S/o. S.Kristappa, aged about 45 years,
Agriculturist, Door No.8-23, Nallagondrayunipalli, Somandepalli Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
2. B.Lakshminarayana, S/o. B.Kondaiah, aged about 46 years, Business,
Door No.1/957, Near Vanshika Function Hall, Kothapeta, Penukonda Town and Mandal.
...Appellants-Defendants
A n d:
S.Riyaz Basha, S/o. S.Khaleel Sab, aged about 34 years,
Door No.4/36, Business, Thimmapuram, Penukonda Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
...Respondent-Plaintiff
2 of 18
ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN
O.S. 42 of 2018 DATED 7.2.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PENUKONDA
Between:
S.Riyaz Basha, S/o. S.Khaleel Sab, aged about 34 years,
Door No.4/36, Business, Thimmapuram, Penukonda Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
...Plaintiff
A n d:
1. S.Ramachandrappa, S/o. S.Kristappa, aged about 45 years,
Agriculturist, Door No.8-23, Nallagondrayunipalli, Somandepalli Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
2. B.Lakshminarayana, S/o. B.Kondaiah, aged about 46 years, Business,
Door No.1/957, Near Vanshika Function Hall, Kothapeta, Penukonda Town and Mandal.
...Defendants
This appeal coming on 22.4.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Madan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri
Md.Asif, Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration to this date (Reserved), this Court passed the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 7.2.2025 in OS.42/2018on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior 3 of 18
Division), Penukonda whereby and where-under, the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Penukonda decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for the discretionary relief of specific performance and for costs.
2.Aggrieved by the decree in the suit, the un-successful
Appellant/defendant approached this court by way of filing of this appeal. For
the sake of convenience, and brevity, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred as per their array in the suit before the learned trial Court.
3. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF IS THAT :-
The defendant No.1 being the owner of land in Sy.No.708-1 consisting an extent of Ac.0.19 cents out of Ac.0.39 cents at Somandepalli village and Mandal, agreed to sell it in favour of plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff entered in to an agreement of sale with the defendant no.1 on 5.11.2016 to purchase this property for total consideration of Rs.2,18,500/- and out this agreed sale consideration,
Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration and both agreed to pay the remaining of Rs.1,68,500/- on or before 5.3.2017 and to get registration of sale deed in favour of plaintiff and if the plaintiff failed in perform his part of contract, the agreement will be cancelled. Subsequently plaintiff though expressed his ready and willingness to proceed further, defendant No.1 postponed with one reason or other, but demanded for balance amount. By trusting 1st defendant, plaintiff also paid Rs.80,000/- on 21.3.2017, paid Rs.75,000/- on 13.5.2017 and also Rs.13,500/- on 6.5.2017 and obtained endorsement on the back of agreement from the 1st defendant, thereby as on 6.5.2017, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,18,500/- which is the total agreed sale consideration, but the defendant not came forward to execute sale deed as agreed. Subsequently, plaintiff came to knew that the 2nd defendant who got close association with 1st defendant were colluded and attempting to created documents in favour of the 2nd defendant. Since the 1st defendant who executed 4 of 18 agreement of sale and received total sale consideration, failed to perform his part of contract, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 2.2.2018 demanding the 1st defendant to appear and execute register sale deed ot the office of Sub Registrar,
Penukonda on 18.2.2018. Plaintiff though present on that day at that place as referred in the legal notice and ready to proceed, the defendant No.1 not choose to appear, thereby failed to perform his paft of contract. Under these circumstances, plaintiff approached the Court and instituted the suit seeking the relief of specific performance against the defendants and if the defendants failed to comply, prayed the Court to do the same by executing sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit property.
4. PLEA OF THE DEFENDANT IS THAT :-
a)Defendant No.1 filed written statement and it was adopted by the 2nd defendant and these defendants denied all the facts asserted in plaint except the fact that the 1st defendant is absolute owner of suit schedule property.
b)These defendants further pleaded that 1st defendant never executed the suit agreement of sale dated 5.11.2016 in favour of plaintiff and he never agreed to sell the suit property and the agreement of sale dated 5.11.2016 was a created document with the forged signatures of this 1st defendant so as to knock away the suit property illegally and the plaintiff by creating this document got issued legal notice to the 1st defendant who is innocent and helpless and the plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of contract also absolutely false and the contents of legal notice dated 12.2.2018 are also false.
c)These defendants further pleaded that he being absolute owner of suit property got every right to alienate the same to anyone in any mode and accordingly this defendant No.1 soled the property to the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of it and the plaintiff 5 of 18 knowing all these facts filed this suit to harass the defendants, therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. ISSUES:-
Basing on the plea of parties in plaint and written statement as well as upon hearing and on verification of documents, the learned trial court framed following issues for trial and adjudication:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of suit agreement?
2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
3. To what relief ?
6. EVIDENCE:
During the trial, the plaintiff / S.Riyaz Basha being holder of agreement deposed as PW1 by producing Ex.A1 to A8 documents and he also examined the attestor both in Ex.A1 agreement and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement as PW2. The 1st defendant S.Ramachandrappa deposed as DW1 and no documents produced.
7.FINDING OF TRIAL COURT:
After hearing both sides and on considering the entire evidence as referred above, the learned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Penukonda satisfies that plaintiff probablized his plea as true and correct, thereby decreed the suit on 7.2.205 directing the defendant No.1 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff as agreed under the agreement of sale dated 5.11.2016.
6 of 18
8. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
Aggrieved by decreeing of the suit, the un-successful sole defendant / Appellant herein, preferred this appeal with the following grounds:
1.The learned Trial Court failed to apprecitate the evidentiary value fo the sale agreement dated 5.11.2016 marked as
Ex.A1 and subsequent endorsements of slae agreement, dated 5.11.2016 ie., dated 21.3.2017 for Rs.80,000/-, dated 3.5.2017 for
Rs.75,000/- and dated 6.5.2017 for Rs.13,500/-.
2.The learned trial court failed to consider the habitual litigation brought by the plaintiff by filing OS.09/2022, OS.03/2022 and
CC.598/2018 without any licence or permission and on these ground
the suit ought to have been dismissed.
3.The learned trial court failed to notice that the respondent/plaintiff in unmistakable terms admitted that the scribe of the document by name is Azadh is doing real estate business, he false deposed that he was attestor of the document.
4.The learned trial court failed to notice that the endorsements on the back side of last page of Ex.A1, there is no signature of defendant No.1 or attestor or scribe. The last page of
Ex.A1 contains signature of the defendant No.1 after endorsements of other transactions. But the endorsements dated 21.3.2017 for
Rs.80,000/-, dated 3.5.2017 for Rs.75,000/- and dated 6.5.2017 for
Rs.13,500/- does not contain signature of defendant No.1 which is not at all permissible under law and against to the statue.
7 of 18
5.The learned trial learned Court grossly erred in believing
Ex.A1 which is denied by the appellants-defendants.
6. The learned trail Court failed to notice that Ex.A1 cannot be used to prove the contents of Ex.A2 to A6 and its execution is not admitted.
7. The learned trail court failed to notice that the contentions of the appellants/defendants are that the Ex.A2 to A6 are created for the prupsoe of proving the Ex.A1.
8.The learned trail court failed to notice that there is ample evidence and the admissions made by Pws.1 and 2 clearly speaks the fact that the respondent/plaintiff and attestor colluded together to defraud the appellants/defendants and brought into existence Ex.A1.
9.The learned trial court failed to notice that the sale consideration in Ex.A1 was not proved.
10.The learned trial court grossly erred in ignoting the important and crucial admissions in their cross examination which clearly establishes the fact that Ex.A1 was brought into existence to deceive the appellants/defendants.
11.The trial court grossly erred in not noticing that the stand taken by the respondent/plaintiff is different from that of the pleadings.
12.The trial court erred in coming to the conlcusion that the respondent/plaintiff did not adduce any supportive evidence.
8 of 18
13.The trial court grossly erred in coming to the conslusion that the Ex.A1 to A6 are null and void and prohibited under law and failed to notice that the appellants/defendants are no way concerned as per Ex.A1.
14.The trail court ought to have been held that Ex.A1 is the only the agreement of sale between the parties and subsequent endorsements are created and ought to have been held that the plaintiff/respondent connived together and brought into existence
Ex.A1 and the alleged endorsements under Ex.A2.
15.The trial court ought to have been held that the respondent/plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands and the respondent/plaintiff is not entitle for decree of specific performance and that the appellant/defendants will suffer great and irreparable loss and injustice if the suit is decreed.
9.ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RECEIVED.
The learned counsel for appeallant filed IA.94/2006 under Order 41
Rul3 27 of CPC to receive a certified copy of sale deed dated 30.8.2024
executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant with prayer to consider it as
additional evidence and it is to be considered along with this appeal.
10. ARGUMENTS:
(a)Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trail court erred in decree in suit by ignoring the fact that the part payment endorsement under Ex.A2 had been fabricated, thereby no attestors/witnesses for it and the learned trial court erred in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff proved 9 of 18 his case as well as the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that plaintiff failed in leading sufficient evidence to substantiate his plea, therefore it is clear that the suit itself was a collusive suit by the agreement holder and witnesses so as to grab the suit property in any way, but the learned trial court decreed the suit which causing irreparable loss to the appellant/defendant/owner of property and further the property was already sold by this 1st defendant to 2nd defendant, hence, balance of convenience is also not there in favour fo the plaitniff, hence prayed to dismiss the suit by allowing this appeal
(b)Learned counsel for the respondent/ submitted that the learned trial court considering the admissions of 1st defendatn as DW1 and by considering oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff, delivered its judgment by following the principles of Law as provided under the Law within the purview of Law, therefore, there is no need to set aside the decree, since the plaintiff could able to show his ready and willing to perform his part of contract always which is supported by oral evidence of PW2. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
In view of the specific contentions raised by both the parties, the following simple points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the agreement of sale/Ex.A1 and part
payments under Ex. A2 are true, supported by
consideration, thereby binds the 1 st defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiff always ready and willing
to perform his part of contract to proceed
further?
3. Whether the plaintiff entitled for the
discretionary relief of specific performance as
prayed?
10 of 18
4. Whether the learned trial court judgment and
decree are liable to be set aside as prayed?
5. To what relief?
12. POINTS NO.1 TO 3:
From and out of the pleadings of both parties and the relief prayed in the suit, it is clear that the suit was for discretionary relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of immovable property, thereby the burden of establishing the facts pleaded is upon the plaintiff, since the plaintiff approached the
Court excepting a decree in his favour as prayed. The defendants can resist the claim with the evidence possessed by substantiating his plea. Herein, plaintifff apart from deposing as PW1, he also examined an attestor in the documents Ex.A1 and A2 as PW2 apart from producing Ex.A1 to A6 documents. Defendant No.1 alone deposed as DW1 and no documents produced. The purchasor/ 2 nd defendant not examined and he too not deposed himself. With these available evidence on record those points are to be answered.
13.Case of plaintiff as contained in his plaint as well as in his evidence is that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of suit schedule property which is a land existing within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. Defendant as DW1 admitted this fact that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property.
Contents in Ex.A6 copy of 1-B obtained on 21.2.2018 also disclosing same that the suit schedule property stands in the name of 1st defendatn as on the date of instituting the suit. Hence it is proved that the defendant is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. Now, it is to be seen that whether he entered in to an agreement of sale with the plaintiff lawfully.
14.Plaintiff as PW1 deposed and pleaded that when 1st defendant intended to sell the suit schedule property, he approached the 1st defendant 11 of 18 negotiated in where the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs.2,18,500/- and these negotiations were held in the presence of witness by name Azad and others, accordingly both the plaintiff and defendant NO.1 entered into an agreement of sale under which the plaintiff paid
Rs.50,000/- as advance sale consideration on 5.11.2016 and defendant executed the agreement of sale. Defendant No.1 specifically denied the transation by pleading that he never executed that ageement of sale in favour of plaintiff and that agreement was a created one with forged signatures of 1st defendant, not supported by any consideration, thereby he is not bound to execute any sale deed as prayed. In view of the denial of fact asserted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff being the person who approached the court seeking decree in his favour, to prove the transaction examined himself as PW1 and the attestor in the agreement Ex.A1 by name Azad as PW2 and produced the original agreement of sale as Ex.A1.
15.Contents in Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 5.11.2016 disclosing that the plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale to sell and purchase suit property for lawful consideration as deposed by PW1 and the defendant being executant and owner of suit property received Rs.50,000/- as advance sale consideration from the plaintiff in the presence of said witness Azad and other witnesses with an undertaking to execute and register sale deed on or
before 5.3.2017 after receiving balance sale consideration. To support these
facts PW2/Azad/attestor in Ex.A1 also deposed. His evidence also similar to the evdience of PW1 and in the cross examination of this witness also he specifically deposed that while the negotiations were going on between the 1st defendant and plaintiff, he too present and the defendant received Rs.50,000/- as advance sale consideration and signed in Ex.A1 as executant in his presence with an undertaing to executing the sale deed as agreed, thereby the document Ex.A1 was legal and lawfully executed. This execution of Ex. A1 as deposed by PW.1 and Pw.2 was denied by defendant pleading that his signatures were forged and he never executed it in favour of plaintiff and deposed the same in his evidence in chief.
However, in his cross examination he admitted material facts. During the cross 12 of 18 examination of 1 st defendant who deposed as DW1/sole witness, in his cross examination he admitted that the suit schedule property belongs to him and
this DW1/1st defendant by verifying the document Ex.A1 agreement of sale
admitted that the signatures contained in it as executant are all his signatures
and he got no disputes with PW2 as well as he further admitted that he knew
the plaintiff, therefore he executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale infavour of
plaintiff. This 1st defendant as DW1 further admitted in his cross examination
that if the plaintiff grants 2 months time to the defendant, he is ready and
willing to execute register sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit
schedule property. These admissions of the sole defendant who deposed as
DW1/1st defendant/executant of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, made it clear and establishing the facts asserted by plaintiff as true and correct.
16. These admissions of DW1 made it clear that though he denied
execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale initially and he also pleaded that no
notice was served upon him under Ex.A3 and he never received any amount
under Ex.A1 including the amounts under partpayment Ex.A2, in the cross
examination, this defendant No.1 as DW1 admitted all these facts that he
knew the plaintiff and he executed Ex.A1 to sell the suit property to plaintiff
and received Rs.50,000/- under Ex.A1 as well as ready and willing to execute
sale deed in favour of plaintiff for suit property if 2 months time granted from the date of his cross examination. All these admissions of 1st defendant as DW1 establishing the part payments also as contained in Ex.A2 on the back of Ex.A1 and these partpayments endorsements s also suported by the oral evidence of
PW2/witness. Under these circumstances, this court is of the view that the finding given by the learned trial court by relying all these facts that the plaintiff could able to probablize his plea is appears to be a reasonable finding based on the evidence available on record, thereby the learned trial court came to a right conclusion by concluding that the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and 13 of 18 passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and A2 to the 1st defendant in the presence of
PW2.
17.The payment endorsements under Ex.A2 coupled with the oral evidence of DW1/1st defendant in his cross examination that if 2 months granted from the date of his cross examination which was held on 4.10.2024, he will execute and register a sale deed in favour of plaintiff for suit property as well as the documents produced by the plaintiff under Ex.A4 blank non judicial stamp papers
dated 15.2.2018, are all disclosing that the plaintiff ready and willing to perform his
part of contract always, but the defendant used to postpone to perform his part for one reason or other even after receiving the total sale consideration as contained in
Ex.A1 and A2 documents. Conduct of plaintiff and his overt acts of making
payments under Ex.A2, giving legal notice to the defendant No.1 and
presence before the office of Sub-Registrar, Penukonda are all disclosing the
eagerness of plaintiff to obtain register sale deed in terms of Ex.A1
agreement of sale from the defendant NO.1 for the suit property, but the
defendant No.1 not cooperated. Since the ready and willingness of plaintiff was also established from and out of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and DW1 coupled with the contents in Ex.A1 to A5 documents, the plaintiff who sought the discretionary relief of specific performance, satisfied the conditions of his always ready and willingness to perform his part of contract, therefore, the plaintiff is entitiled for the discretionary relief as prayed.
18.The appellant being defendants though filed IA.94/2026 in this appeal, prayed the court to receive certified copy of sale deed dated 30.8.2024 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant as additional evidence and consider it as evidence on his behalf. It is the Law settled as ruled by Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in between Athota Chinnabbai and other Vs. Suri Setty
Venkataramana in 2025 (3) ALD 9 (AP) that unless the conditions provided under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, no additional evidence can be received. Order 41 Rule 14 of 18 27 of CPC made it clear that an additional evidence in the form of document can be received in appeal, only if the person who intended to produce additional evidence satisfies the court that the document sought to receive as additional evidence was not considered by the trial court or it was not brought on recored by mistake even though available on record or inspite of his due deligence, he could not secure and produce the same before the learned trial court or when appellate court requires a document as additional evidence. This rule reads as follows:
27. Product of additional evidence in Appellate Court. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But it:
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was
not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due
diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause,
the appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be
produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.
19. Herein, the grounds on which the relief sought by submitting
IA.94/2026 is not satisfying any of these conditions. 1 st defendant who said to
be executed this sale deed dated 30.8.2024 in favour of 2nd defendant, no where pleaded and deposed even though he filed his evidence in chief on 20.9.2024. He had been cross examined on 4.10.2024. There also he did not spoke about this 15 of 18 document. There is no reference about this document in the pleadings of defendants. Further though this document was dated 30.8.2024, 1 st
defendant/executant who filed his evidence in chief on 20.9.2024, not at all
referred this document that he sold suit property to the 2 nd defendant under
this sale deed. Further it is clear that this suit was insituted in the year 2018,
whereas the document sought to receive is of the year 2024. Hence, it is clear
that the transaction took place under the intended document to receive is a
pending litigation and the validity of this document depends on the result of
this appeal. Even if this document is received, as this document is not in existence as on the date of instituting the suit, it has no effect on the result of the suit which was decreed by the learned trial court. Hence, this court is of the view that the addtional evidence sought to be received cannot be received as it not satisfying the requirements of Law under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and further even if received, it has no effect on the result of the suit. Under these circumstances, it appears that
there is nothing wrong in the finding of learned trial court who concluded that
the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed.
20. POINT NO.4:
Whether the learned trial court judgment and decree are liable to be set aside as prayed?
In view of above discussion based on the evidence brought on record, it is clear that the discreation excercised by the learned trail court appears to be within the setteled principles of Law and there is nothing wrong in a decree passed by the learned trial court. Under these circumstances, it is the law setteled as ruled by the Hon’ble Supre Court in between SINGAMASETTY BHAGAVATH GUPTHA
& ANR. VERSUS ALLAM KARIBASAPPA (D) BY LRS./ALLAM
DODDABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. In CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 12048-12049
OF 2018 dated SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 reported in 2025 INSC 1159 their lordship 16 of 18 while discussing the circumstances, when the judgment of trial court is to be reversed in an appeal, at para No.10 rules as follows:
25. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari 6 this court highlighted the important duty that an appellate court exercises, particularly when it seeks to reverse the judgment of the Trial Court. The principles of law laid by this court are extracted for ready reference: “15. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that it has extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties for deciding the issues on which the parties went to trial. It also found that in support of his plea of adverse possession on the disputed land, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence while the oral evidence adduced by the defendant was conflicting in nature and hence unworthy of reliance. The first appellate court has, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff as also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court (…) While
writing a judgment of reversal the appellate court
must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly,
the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence
arrived at by the trial court must weigh with the
appellate court, more so when the findings are
based on oral evidence recorded by the same
Presiding Judge who authors the judgment. This
certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies
on facts, the appellate court is not competent to
17 of 18
reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial
Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the
evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material
irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence
or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate
court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact.
The rule is — and it is nothing more than a rule of
practice — that when there is conflict of oral
evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and
the decision hinges upon the credibility of
witnesses, then unless there is some special
feature about the evidence of a particular witness
which has escaped the trial Judge's notice or there
is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace
his opinion as to where the credibility lie, the
appellate court should not interfere with the
finding of the trial Judge on a question of fact.
Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact the
appellate court must come into close quarters with
the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then
assign its own reasons for arriving at a different
finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.” (emphasis supplied)
21. POINT NO.5:
To what relief?
In obedience above ruling of Hon’ble Supre Court, this court is of
the view that the finding of learned trial court in OS.No.42/2018 is not
contravey to the evidence available on record in OS.No.42/2018 and the
learned trial court considered the relief by satisfying upon the requirements
of Law for consideration of the specific relief as provided under the Law, therefore, there is no need to interfere into the finding of learned trial court 18 of 18
dated 7.2.2025. Hence, this appeal and IA.94/2026 filed Under Order 41 Rul3 27
CPC are liable to be dismissed.
22. RESULT:
In the result, this appeal filed against the Judgment and decree of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Penukonda dated 7.2.2025 is hereby DISMISSED and directed both parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- T.Vasudevan
Civil Judge, (Senior Division)
Penukonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
DOCUMENTS MARKED
No oral or documentary evidence adduced by either party in this appeal.
Sd/- T. Vasudevan
Civil Judge, (Senior Division)
Penukonda.