The defendant appealed against concurrent findings decreeing specific performance of an agreement to sell. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage.
Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
; t
[321s ]
i : i I I I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
SECOND APPEALNO:795 OF 2O17
Appeal under section 100 of c.p.c against the Judgment and Decree Dated 1910212014 made in A.s.No.99 of 2012 on the fire of the cou( of the rX Additionar District Judge at Wanapa(hy,
Preferred against the Decree in o.S.No.26 of 2009 Dated 23tol l2o,l2 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool.
Between:
Akuthota Krishnaiah, S/o. Late Venkata Seshaiah, Aqe 75 years, occ: NiI, Rl/o. Kottapur Town & Mandat, MahaOuUnagii Oirtidt.''"
,..APPE LLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
AND
A.D.B.Rama Lingaiah, S/o. Late Veeraiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business & Rr/o. waridyar Viilase of Kotrapur"rown d rrrranbar, rr,lJhio;-b;;;", ApJi;:ilr*,
... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
S.A.M.P.No:1 604 0F 2017
Petition under section 1 51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings incruding the execution of Judgment and decree passed in o.S.No.26 0f 2009 dated 23to7120.12 0n the file of the senior civil Judge at Nagarkurnoor as confirmed by Judgment and decree by the rX Additional District Judge at wanaparthy in A,s.No.99 of 2o12 dated 1gto2t2o14 pending disposal of the above appeal.
Counsel for the Appettant: SRt V.MANOHAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED
The Court delivered the fo owing: JUDGMENT
l HE IION'Bl.l. Dr..ltrS'l'lCE G. ll,\l)HA I \
SITCONI) ;\PPl-..\L No.795 ol' 201 7
.II DGME'I':
-l lris l: .rond 1\pl)citl is lilcd trl tlre' app,. ll r I r[]f ellent, r.lcicrrdant lrgg'ir', ccl b1' thcjuderne nl an(l dccrcc ra.seti n 1 \ \11 99 rrl l(tll dat:c1 11. 0.1.2014 on thc illc olthc lX Adci tiori,r Itistlict.lLLtlqu ilI \ arraparthr. r onfirmins thc L td.Lr rtr c n L arrd dcc c() in( !S \o.16 ol' 1009 diltr-c :j )7.2() 12 on thc tl lc- ol' tlre Se n rrrr'( ir rl l Lrilur \eglrrk u t-rto.r I
l-ltr pltr c:l atc rclcrr-erl to ltcrcinrilirr' :r\ tlra,. .,ere .rrr lrrcd l.t li,r. lhe ll.ill ,,() ll'l
lirc plairtilf lllcd O.S.No.l(r ol'1009 lirr':l.,ccrllt tcr i,)r'nr:r1rec 1rl il:llr'e lllCll Ol rl.' dated 17.0 l.l(l() I I lrt l..l.rLrrt li r i(lrll.rL llta tlclirtrlrrnt uas tl e absolrrte ouner ol thc lrrnt I S, .\ r lilr I lrtlrncasurirtg IC0t :iquare rards sitLratc-rl iri tlrc i nrit- ,r' \:rr icl., rl \ illiru.. K0llitPut t<:tvrt.-l lte clc-le'trdrrnl !()n\ttU!t Ll :t .l ttl lor litc litll l()!' OlSl()ll(l u ling and ltolishrrt!, irrtlrr'trr Lrnrlcr il !. rillta :r l(l .rr lc ot'\1,s. Sri l ri Baba SLotrt ( Lrttrrrc illrl I)()lr\lltn! ,r tiLr.trr' I Jc Lil.(l l llj.in ol'Ii o.+S.00() ltrrIr .1' \i.rt. I n.lll, t.t | (' t),1 li ,it ir)
Dr.0RR..i l. t.\D 195 ol )ttt-
run tlre said industrv. Subsequentlr. hc, ot'lerr.d to sc,ll the propctl), to the plaintilT fbr a total conside.ariorr c,l its -i.00.()()0. and enrereci inro agreement ol salc on 17.01 .1001. On t:rc ciatc oi' ag!.ccnlent, thc plaintiff paid a surn of Rs.1.00.000,- a,d aqrccd to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000r'- t.* ards trrc r.a. li,roL,r or' crerendant with A.P. State Irinancial C,.rporatr.rr. .[.h.lrtrt;l.r,agar branch. l.he defendant agreed to executc aird rc!.tsrcr. th,-, sale clccd in lavour ol- the plaintiff after closure ol'the l.an rr irlr ,.r,. 'iturc rrirrarcial corporaLion On 16.02.2004. the plaintif'l pairl a sunr ()! lts. l.70,QQQ/_ r., 11.l" defendant through D.D.No.li9l darccr r r 0r.l00-l issucd by rhe cenrrar tsank of India, Waridy,al branch iorrariis purl l)a) tnent ol' sale consideration and obtaini.r! u rccr'i|i ll.,rnt rI.,.,(ie l!,n(iar)t. Sutrscquenti1,. the defendant stated to tlrc Il;1i111i11 111a: srnce lrriqc arnount r,r,as in'r,olved he would lhcc irrcorir., trtr 1.r1.1rirl.'111 1s \1clr. askt-.d tlrc plailtifT tO canCel the D.D. and pa_r br, rrirr 6l easlr. \cc6rclipqlr,. the plaintilf got cancelled thc D.l). and paicl c:.rslr ro th.. clctcrrdant. Again on 25.03.2004, the plainril'f Paicl thc balane e irrl()L,r ot Rs -10.000/_ to the defendant and the clelcrrrlant c\c(.ul(,(l ii rlrcoilli. ,\ ltcr rccciving the said arnount, thc dclinclarrt ,,lo:i:tl lri. iicc(\rrl irr thc A.l). Statc Financial Corporation. On lN().1 .l{!07. rlrc tlcte lilu6t 6htainc-d a
l)r.(' R R.J \ t ,,.'9i ol )rtl'
J
l'cgr:ter.LI 'ai,',. i(r(t flonr i.P.S.1 .(.. sinccthe ct rpora.lill lecan'atilc o\ ne r'()l ttc :, lt,:duled ntortgagedpropefl!b1 r'ir tLr. ,rl the clclllLLlt clatrse in r'( llit\ n cltt o1'thc loan.'l'he Su b- Registrlrt'.K'lr ilrPttt coLtld rlot rclcrisc Lh! sali'( ccd due to sotnc ob.iectionsirll(l lr,r rlil(l li5sigllcd pcrrtlin!l \rr.Jli l' 1007 to the said document. Firallr.tr [l)e rll()rlth()l \llrclr. l0tl8. tl c said document \'as released br thc\Lrh I{!'srstrar. Koll-LPur r-'-list rt-d as docurncnt No.278 ol'l00E : uc lr. tllc tlcle ntlunt r,a: lr b c to execute the registert'd salc.le((li:r tltt.rLrt ot tltc Pl:iinlrl'll)L'\pil' :,everal demands.the def'endant lhi cd lr) c)cclrt. tllc le:,i.tclr'ti -rLIc t r,---l end lirrlhcr lcascd the strccl pilrtii,t l) \lilcl.ilrl(l \ir\ r!e!,\inu r.t ::()n ll.0;1.2008. the plaintitl'got i.:rrr lc.'.ri rtr,ti.. l() ih.(ir'ler(lilnt Ierlarlding hiln to cxccutc thc rcgist!'re( :.tle riettl.Lrltl ,rlso lo l.rrr rhc n,lrLse prollts.-I'he delerrdanLga</sup> c a lirl lt1- lr rl r)11!!' tl.rletir)l i),.101)E il) such. Illed the suit
I I h. tl,,'1. nrlant filcd the wlitlen statcrne nr . I I( ,tln rtted hi: )\ l!'\llll\ (r.(l ,c sthCclttle plOpCfl\ bLrt dclrictl llltil' -'tlL,'t'itl lrtttr .rLrc.nrcnL rrl .lil. r,ith thc ltlaintil-l'by liring tlte srlee,r "itle-:ttioitlt' I I{: or).()( x ) co rltcll(led that thc shedrilts ()\11(',1 l'\ 'trtr\l r.ll \ ir ll.1l.1'11 ;1r1r\ ( 'r'nrllAttlhc-tla Vill aqc ol htrlllrDtrr.1 t i.r .rrr.l : ir,.
\
D..GR R-J S..t-\o.'95 tt[)lrl-
J
j ! I
said person lell due to Ihe Statc [:rnancc Cor;roratiolr an,l sincc hc lailed, the ptopefl-v was auctioncci and in tltt' said auction. the cietc,nclilnt purchased the same. He denied that hc cntcrc(l into an agrcentcnt of sale with the plaintiff and that thc praintifl'paid anr.anlount ro hinr or he passed any receipts and that lie closcd th(. accorrrl rr ith state l- inance Corporation with the arnounts r.cccircci lr<irir rhc plaintill. IIc co,te,ded that plaintifl'had nothi.u rr) (ro u irlr 'egar.crto .btainingol registered sale deed bv thc dcl'crrdlnt liorl il.:t, ( or.ilor.1111yrr rrr.rd r.clcasc of all the documenrs fiont the Sub-liciti5rr.ai.
4.1 . Ile lurther contendcd that rire pl.ri,til-t. hirrrse Il. lL,il d,-re an anroulrt of Rs. 1,20,000i- to thc dr-lcnriirnt .rrrtl crccutcti a prclnilssory note on 27.01.2004 and in such a silLrxri()n. it coLrltl rrot lrc corrtcndcd that the plaintiff intended to purchase rhc 1.rlrn;,11r li.orrr thc clelendant. IIc c.nrended that the plaintir'r'.rrr rrrrrr.i, ,rtr.r)rri), tt, cr,crc r)a-\r1cnt to hirn due under the promissorl n()t,-. r.ri\crl tlti: l.rlrc :itor. I lc llrther contcnded that even as per thc allcllcci sLtit ciocrrrltcrrt tlic duc datc- filr balance paylncnt was on -j I .()l lt)()l 6gl,r ,y,tl silcc ti;tr, \.ts csse,cc ot the contlac( and plaintiff lailcd to 1-rr,r 1l1c anr()Llr)[ us lter the said docutleltt, thc plaintilf could p6t scck lirr. ..p.,cilic lrcrlirrrlancc. I Ic
Dt oRR,l
)
lirrthcr c()ntan( .t( tiret e \ !'11 its llcr the suit doculnen i1\ lls tl()l ltll lqrcanraf L l|(l ,\ ri\ inclie atiirrL dciir c11 ol onlv p.rrt ol' tlrr- llroparl\ .it,</sup> sLrelr. lrc r't)ul(()l ci )\rLss that it was an aE.rcclllrll, [i)l sl)eeillc pcrlortlln - c
+l II.' llrr r,-r contcuded that the suit was b,rrrcd lirritation es tlrc Il:rirrtill r cr ti,rt.t..tl r t1 his plaint that he had paid the t,r al iun(rur)t lr\ la 0 i lr)o I I lc lirrther contcnded that the pl ri rtil'\ u:iir()l lrrrr f r,- .rr''jn , l,. L:r stlttLl: to purchasc the proltenr i't r i,-'rr rrl tlt.l c\rfUtl()n()l t,rrissorr notc in his tavour {br ln anr()unL oi l{r l.l(t.,t(t,, Ir l .rrtlrcl corltcnded that the pla intill' ii iccl ri 1,r'r'' .rte L()nrl)l.rint .rr.L n i llil:l undcr Sections 384 and 420 ol'Il'( itt ci iri,. ri ir, c\lllr.t ,[ll(,rrill(,nl l]1Dr arld having failed to exlrtct rrlr()u )t il, lll.rL rrrLrte. l c'ri .r l.rl..' ,u:,!' \itlr lalse allegations and pravcd t.r clisuri:.. tlrl :Lllt
ll.i, r rrr tlte :arrl ltlcaclings, tl-rc trial coi,l'l !r':1tr.,.l .jrr Ii)ilrr\ irr - i' 'uJ\
crlrcr thc plaintil't' is entitled lol sp,rL lrL i,r'rflirr!r' (rl .llle ir!.rccntent as pra\c-l li,1'
il l, ,r r,rt reli.l
Dr.CRlt..J :;. l,\o.11).i ol :01i
6
9 Aggrieved furlher, the dclcrrdant L)iL-l.n.e (l lhi. Sce ontl .\ppcal contcnding that the lottowing substantial c;Lrc:ti.rrs ol la* tiould ar.isc in this appeal:
h) Whcther both thc c()urt\ iu\lili((l irr he Iicr irr!, rhc
l)t.O R R,J t;.1.\o.'Y5 t)/ )ttl'
ii tI
t)lr\ lllLnL()l Pitltsalc considcratioll (,n:17 0l-10()+. \ llcn rlr. plilrrrtill' hinrsell'has cx(cutcd ptol.t.tissorr lror. ,f 'r 0 l l()0+ in lar our ol' c1:lcrrclant .r1'pe lirnl .rnrl the linciings ol' bttth thc('.)Ltr sarc pe I-\ Cl\a )
!r) l-. r tl r. ( .u rrorl \ ()Lurs!'l lbr thc appellant
I I S''. ,, l()o l llro('r,dr of- Civil Prtlccc{r rc. lr)t'5 .. s r r [,. ] i t r r i ,', I r'' llri( 't,rl. rrl( ir il I)rocedure Atnendtn,.111 .'\g1. ]()r(r Iiri-l ,)lL)-t, ,rr.l.rllL'.1 1r()nr()l()1.I977 rcads asutt(r. I
Dt.GRR,J S .1.'..10:,{)i)l'
8
' I l)0. Sccond Appcal.
(l)Savc as othcruisc cxprcssl\ ploridcd in ihc bo,-jr ol this Code ol by any othcr larv Ibr the tinre bcins in Ibrcc, an appeal shall lic to the I{igh Court lronr crcr.r decrce passed in appeal by anl ( orrrt suhordinare ro thc lligh(lourt. if'thc IIigh ('oult is sarisllcd rhrr the casc iuvrrlves a substantial question ol la\,
(2) An appeal may lic under this sccrion fiorr arr appellate decrec passed ex partc.
(i) ln an appcal under this scclion. Ilrc rrrcrrorantlrrrrr trl'appcal shall prccisell' stiltc Ihc \r,rhsiantirrI tlrrc'rrrrn ol'law involved in thc appeal.
(4) Where thc lligh Ccurt is s.ati-sficd tltat a :iiih\ra,r{r.rl question of law is involveJ in anr casc. ir shlill fbrnrulate that question.
(5) The appeal shall be heard on tltc qrrcslrorr .,, fbrmulated and the respondent shall- at the lrcltirrl ot the appcal. be allowcd to arguc thal thc cesc dtre. nor involve such question:
l)r'ovidcd that nothing in this srrir-scclirrn .lr.rll l.c dccnred to takc awav or abtidgc Ilrc lrrrrrr..r ,rl rhc (ourt to hear. fbr rcasons to he recrrrtl,.i!- llrc .11.|,..111 on any other substantial qucslion ol llrrr. rrrrl lbrnrulated by it. il'it is satisflcd iltai tltc crs(' rnr trlr e' such question.
l. llrc c\istence of substantia,l question oi'la\ is the rirt, Lluu tlott lirr tlr.' crcrcisc of the jurisdiction under lhe alrcndcd Section l0() ol tlrc( odc. SccLion 100 ol the Code, as amended in 197(r. rcsri icrs rhc iurisrlrction olthc [ [igh Courr to hcat' a Sccorrd .\Ppc1l ,1,,1_r u',
Dr.(, R R.J 4.\o.79i t)/ )t)l'
I
subslanlix (rre i()n ()l l.r\ irr\ olr ctl in th.' case I'he Hirrht--'oult rlust be satisllc,i tlur :r sLrLr'tlrrtIilI !lu.\ti()n ol'larr is in,olvr:rI 1'1 tlrc case and sLrclr Ljue slior lt L\ tlrtrr ttr [,e lirlurLrlltctl bt it. S rch r-luc.itions ura] bc the onc propos( l r,r thc appcllant ol lnil_, [)c anv()ther ,]rrestions \vhich though no |r'o o:,d(l br tir. ,',.,,.,.,,,rr)t _\ct in the opinior ol' the tligh C'ourt alis.> : s n() ie'rl in thc eu:e alrd is sLrbstirntial irr natr-rre.'['he phrase'srrh:;tr rt rrl !lLlcstion ol lair'' as occurnng in the anrcndcrl S-'e t o (l() i: rrLrr .l,. lln-tl irr tlrc C.odc.'l hc rvrrC stbstantial. AS q ua li l'r r nq ,11 l()n ()l l.l\. nriiil5 - ol haring subst tnce, csscntial. real. ol' sounri '. rr lt. irrporLunt ol corrsidcrable as lard tl tht: [{on'ble Aper('orrri rn 'arrtoslr ll:rzari rs l)urushottam Tirvrrrr ([)eceascd) Ilr I rS IriIl,: l. \ i.!'.( ()urt .rl.o obscrvcd tliat
I lr . Li) l)e Lrn(lcrstood ,rs sonct,ring in (,y .r!lr.l r .lt,'t \iilt teehlicll. u1- rro strbst:rnce or . r..!i ..i,..,, .r.li.:rri rrelelr. llorrcrcr. it s clcar r .rL ir. L- - ttL . l.r..lrrr:en not t()cualili,, lr. scopc ii <sup>..i Li r \ tL-.t ,,rr rrl llrrr lrr strll rir.g tte wOtds ,, r, ri r.,l rlr,fr.Lr' '' .r' lr.r: bcen ilont in rn,rlt ,, ot ter tj,,\ L:L' r\ .rr. I.r' \tetio lt)() ot'thC Cotle or \rti:le ilr l,r.rr,. ilri( ,,rr.tItrrtr()IL Iltc sub:tantirrl qrrestron .' i.r\ \rf,. r!lr .r ..!r,rL-l ul)pcill ltal br' Itcar,l nted ,j )'!!\,:r ,. 1,. .r .Lrhst.trrtilrl rlLtcsLiorr o' lltu o1' ,r rr( .1 iir t,,rL.LD!r' lrr (iuran l)ilta & ,\nr. V's.'f. l(:rrrr I)itta \iii i'r'.</sup> l'rir r( rruncil i 7l . Il ,- rhn se .r.-i rL,t .r . .:r )ir L\l i.rrr .r: i( \ts c rrptorr.d in thc
('(rlr II .\ (
DT,GR R,J s...1.\o.795.'l:ot-
t0
llst clertrsc ()l' thc thcn cxisting Scctiol ll0 ol thc ( .1'.( . (riricc on'tittcd b-\ thc Antcndnte rrt .\ct. l()7-l t cur)c up f'or consideral.ion and lhcir. I_ordships hclt! lhat it did n()t t)lean a substantial qucstlon ()l'get)cral irnportance bur a substantial qucstion o[' lau ,,rlriclr ''ra:;irtrolrcdin thc casc as bctrrccn tl:c partics ln Sir ('hunilal '. i{chta & Sons l_td. !,s. 'l hc Ccntun Spinning and N,lanufacuring Co., Lrd.. [( i 96] ) Supp.i SCR -549]. thc Cons.,itutiorr Bench cxpressed irsrecnlcnt uith thc folior.l,ing vierv takcn tiy a I-.Lrll Ilcnch of lvladras IIigh Cou( in Rimmalapudi Suhba Rao Vs. Noony Veeraju, UI_R I952 h4adras 2641:_
"rrhcn a qucstion of ia.+ is lairl; arguablc. u hcre tlrcrc is roor.n fbr dif f'crcncc ol' opirrion on it or where thc Court thought it nacc:sar\ to dcal rvith that qucslion :tl s(,rnc lerrgth and discuss altcrnative vicw. lhc!t thc LlLlcstiorl riOulrl bc a subslantirl Oucst_i0n ollrrr()rr the otltcr hand il'thc qLrcslirrn rras practicall) covcrcd by the decision ol'rhc highcst Court or if the general principlcs tir hc rpplicd in dctemrining lhe qucstiot):lr.c rrcl! sertlcd and the only question u,as ol appll,ing thosc principles to the particular. liret of thc casc it would not bc a substantial qLrcst ion ol law," .
irntl laid dorrrr thc lollowing test as propei rcst. lil .ie rcr nririrrg r helhcr a quc,stiorr ol' larr Iaiscd i. th,-, cit\c i\ sul.)i.talt t ia l -
'-ll',e pro;rcr test lbr detcrntining rrhctlrcr a (luestiol) ol' la\, raised ir: the casc i: substantial uould. in our opinion. lrc rr hctlrcr it is ol sL.ncrai puhlic inrpt,rt;ui.,: ,,r uhctlrcr il rlrrcctlr and sLrbstantiallr al'lcct:. tlrc rir:hrs ol tltc oartics and il'so rrllctltcr rt rs !'rtllcr iln ()pctr question in thc serrse rhlt il
Dr.(; RR,J 1.\o79i ol 2017
P,
(
:. r,1 llrlrll<sup>.Lllcd h\ tlti.(,'Lrrt (!r )' LII(l l)ri'..(,rLlretl ,,r irr tltc icJelri( trtt- tt i; nrri :l-. li,,fr !lill:.ult\ i,r' crrll:, lirtli:eLr.:iLrr ,,1 irllcln.rtirc i t'ltr' I' th,. Llua\ !) l i. :,'LtIetl [,r l]tc lrtslre:t( r) lrt o: rl tlre rcnerirl pritrciplc: t() b( itDl)l r'' tieterrrinirrrt tlrc rlirt-stii,n trc \( ll \cllll.l anc tlrer.: r' a nlcre(lucsti()n ol lrl,plrir g tlxlse priniiplc: ()r tllll(lrc pleir raiscJ is palo,tbll .rIr:rir.l Lhr'(]LLc\tio1r \orrl(l n()l l). a .L l,'t rrrtr.rl rlLte\lt()n ol lll\.'
l-.1. \ r, ni \j1 1.r''. rrlrielt .r(irril' ol lto t\ro ,)l)1Ill{)rl\ fl.r. tr- -r f i ., ll L r : t t i r r t i rrl l.rt' lltit C tl t0[ bC a ,ub\tilntl.l rirLe\tr(, r )l l.rrr. ltr Ie .Lrb,:lrntial. a rlu(5ti()r ,, lrrrr nrLr:l I,,. tlcblttllrle. II )t rrt \ iousl) .ctlled hr lru irl tlre lrrnrl or lr binJing prcc,'J,:nt. and frLr\t hir\L .r r]]irl.ri.rl l.elrrinl 0rt tltr decis or of the !ts(. il -l|],r(rc\l crtlr.r rrlrr. irt sr, lit r: th,: rights O1' llc IiirlrJ\ lril,,1. 11 .',. !)rle(r'tlcrl. l() I,c a qtcsliOt O1' r\ llt\r!l\ fr: llt llt-(ilic Ilteru rrlLl\t [( lirsl a I turrtIltIr,rrr ,,r it l-rL,l rl llre Ileitrlinll5.rtI(l th((rucS ion \ l0 ll!l LIr-r!- lr,Ir llle .Lt'tltIraL'le lltlLlin1ls of 1aC1 lrri'.e.i -lt " !.ir r'!r l.l.t' iUr-i I frLtr' be rtc it.sar lo ,.1-|.le LLt.L .1,.'.1r, ,, l.rrr lor .r LtjL Ir ,.1 prt'per r -Lt\ L)f , . .1:, \ r trtLrrilr n.\ l)() tl lt scd Ibr I . llr\t L r-! ,i' Llrr llrL,lr( (rurt i. n()t lr .t .res(iolt r rr lre.l | .ll. - L.. lL rlc.. il soe: l) thr' r(() ()l the I:ittcr. It r'.rll thr'l.lr,re. ileltent.i or tl'c lLtts lrnd (I'aulll\lirT). ' ,rl r':relr t.rrc rilr.thtr tr qrLc'Li()n rl lar" iS ir \lr )\t.Iltr,rl,r. .rlrr' tt,,Lr...l itl(lre r ltsr. o I ot: :he l).1|lrr(rrifL ,,'.r.rLl .',,r.itlclltt r,n hciD:l llr rfc(llbI \L rk nr -l,r..1 . ,,1i.'.,1.,''a. lr.tiruer Ll e rrttli:1,, rtsurlc ,'1r1j1.1111,11 , rl' trL.t r- .rl .r I i(:r:tC\ it!rJ Lr.t t..ll ng n,.e(.\it\ ,, .rrL'LJir:t |.I'r|(rrM-rti(rII irr Lh. Iil: rl unt l.
DLCR II.J 5.A.,\o.795 of 2(tl,
ll
_l
I he I lon'blc .,\pcr ( oult in Kondiba DagarJu Kadam r.s
Savitribai Sopan Gujar Antl Ors' also held rhat
.'l
Ir has lirnhcr bcen lound in a number olcascs llrirr rto el'lirrr: urc ntadc to distinguish: bctr.vccn a c;ireslion rrl larr irrrtl a sirhstantial qucstion ol ial. lrr crcrcise ol- llrc prrrrcrs Lrrrdcr this Section the findings of'thct ol'thc lst appcllatc court are tbund to have bccn disturbcd Ir l:rs to be kcpt in mind that the righr ol' appcal is ncithcr a natural nor an inherent right allachcd(() thc litisatio:r. []eing a substantive statutor\ rir,lht. ii lras ttr hc rcgrilated in accordancc u,ith lau in lirrcc ilt tlrc r.le',ant tllie . lhe corrditions mentioncd tn llrc Srcti()n nrtrsr [.rc srrictlv iulfilled before a second luppcal can hc rrraintaincd and no court has the pouer I() ud(l to,rr otlar.ue t hose .qro unds.'l'he second appeal clttlttrtt l.rt tleci,.letl on nrcfcly equilable grounds. lhc c()Delitrcltl lirrdi us ol lircts hou,soct.cr crtoltcous ilrrrrrrl lrt, .ir:ilrrhccl hr thc lligh (lourt in exercisc o!' tlrt prrrrer. Lrrrrlcl tlris Scction.'l he substantial qucslion ,rl lrtri lra. to hc d rt rt.u shed liom a substantial (lLre sti()11 ol llrct Ihis Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehla anrl Sons l.td. r. C-crrtury Spinning and \lanullctuirrg (o. l,td. AIlt (1962) SC l3l4 held l lr.rt .
' I lrc lrrtrpcr rcst lbt dcternlining whcther a qtlcsti()rl ol lari' raised in the case is substantial \()uld. ilr oxr spinion. bc whether it is ofgeneral ptrl.lic )rt)l)ortartcc or rrhether it directly aDti . r r I . , r i r r r r i r r | | r rrllcer. rlte rights of thc parties and il \i, \lrrllt.r it i. cithcr iui opcn qucstion in thc \en\c tir.lt rl r: r1()t llntrll\ scttlcd hi' this CoLU.t trr hr thc l'rirr( oLrncil or [r1 the lredcral Court or is nor rice tionr dil'llcultr or calls [br discussion ol' irltc rrrlr\c ricu:. Il tltc qucstiou is settlcd br thc hrr:ltc.t( (rLul (\r tIL' r:epcral principles to bc
( l()r)() | I ( (-li
D t.(, R R,J t. .t'9. tri :t/ 1.
I-l
aPplrr'(l l(lct( llrUIng thc qucsl ()n erc.</sup> ,'l s,'ttlCd alrJ tlrcrc is rL frt're (lLre\tr()rt r'f I Plr ) t!, ll()\e princioles ()t tlrirt lhc |l!.4 n r\c,i i. lrrll,lrtrlr ahsur.l tLrc rlu-:tr(rr \r)ul\l n()t h! iL -L t..lr ltial qIlCSt l, )ll rrl l3\'
i. It i: nor \illtin llre (lont;lrn ol'tl c tligr ( ou I t() Il!'sligltte tlle !t()Llilil: rlrt rrltrrh llnti rtr.l. ,r ' 1 llr \c(l ltl. b\ the ril\l er)urL L)t l:lrt. l)eilt! lte llr .Ll)l)c l.ltC (()tLIt lt l\ Irue Lhill I tU l()\er ill)|el .lle L0 tri .lt,rttltl not or(lrniuil\ rciecL \itnr:\r\ il(ecljtell h. itc triirl (()Llrt in respcct 0l erctlibilitr bLrt tre rt rrlt.r, ir ltls r.'ic..t('rl llrJ \rln!,\. \ .rr!cl\I..\l lr,, 111 11 .,1 ., :r-r rl)( s-ulrc is n() g-roLln(l l!ir lttl l![L.ne( t, .rr) l-] ilpl)cal v ltn il ir lirLrrr.l tlirrt tlrc rrpPslllii; LrLi,r J.r, .t\en S tti:ililctor\ t'ett5()lr\ :(,r .l0ing ',, ln tr ,t., \ i- L llrll]l a gitell.. 1 ,'l . i \ ( . I I I \ I i I I I \ (. . ,\, t 1.i..... .it.c p)ssible. tlnc dntrrn hr tlte lrlrrer rLf ltel lrLt r.,,rrrr i-. b nding <rn rlrc llillr( rrurt rn \ec(rnrj l.rll!ll ., opl ng arv othcr lllltrr)ilell r' l,,r frrnri:..ihie. Ilr. Il . | ('r,Lrrt Clnt'tot sLrlr!1 ltLie t(\ !,1) ()n 11.1 1111.,r1r1 111, t) (ltu I r)t l1 pelllrtc roult rLill... i r. l,ii. irl rlr.rL lt,. ,- ' I tL\t\ n\ ,1:,trrtt ltr iirL tL,\ji rl,l..Li.riL !L)rii,..!-. ! rta( r \ oLilltl eotltllit\ lr) tlra in.Lll.l.t ()1 \ irl().1,1,,11. , 1 l.1ri SfpliCablc r)l iL- . (tj.(l i)()\Ltt(,rr ()r il e.., .t: ol' l)l )llOLlllCClllCllt5 ttl.rJ,t'. Llte llt('\ ( {rul r',r.1- l-..1' -.rl .rpo11 in inrr(ln|\srl,l. e,. r.le|... ()r .Ill erl - l \ rtlt(,Llt .\ dcncc.
r. I1 the (lllc\ti()l t)1 lil\ Lernti!l l\ \ r. lttltl Iu()stronstlll(lsrLLre.Lrlr.litrJ,.,ll,r .rlrLt..,.r l.-|-.ltrl he Iliqh('orrrt !()I!c,i]L,l (,r I),. riri l)r .r (., ri.:il ,rr lr tlte l:cJcrtrl( {)rLtt ,\r L.r llrt \iIri,,,|,-. ( (,It. t\ te.cl, \t',,n, .t1,p1,..r. rj , i .,!1. ,, I .. .ir.! \ rjulJ r)l b' tcril!\l l,' 1... .i i..l.llli.rl []. .l r n , .l.r. ,,IICrL it p() tl Lrl l,rrr li.rr Iot ireell p L.rrl-,J,,r i, itrrn_i I ) l-c atrisrtg lr,tucr'1 tit. lr.Lrticf i1 tll- .r r( lr.e .) lr1 . I cLLutl Iirt nru I lilL:tLr '.lt,,Lrlri rtol ir..rl !,\..1 ,) .ri ll :t1 (ltle\ti()lt 11. .111r.1.1.1r1r1 . Lr.,(t,:t ,,1 lt\ It ...r,lt.l lr.. i l)('itl lle |.r. .,r!! ri:i,I ,, ll - ;.r.
Dt.GRR,J 5..4..(t.795 ol )(tI:
t-t
,.loculrrcrrtar. cr iJcrrce ()r tltc ntcAninq ol cntirc and the c()r'ltcr.lts {)l thc (locutrrcnr currr)ot be hclcl to bc t.aising a :ubstatlttrdl quciti()n rrl lirrr. l{trt rr.hcre it is tbund that tltc Iirst appcllalc eoLltr lla\ assunlcd.iurisdiction *trich clid ntrL rcst irr it. thc iiu)tc (an hc ad.ludicated in the sccond appcal. trcarinl: it as substantial question of larr. \'here tlrc lirst appcllatc cour( is shown to have e\crciscd its tliscr'.'tion in a iird:cial rlanner- it cannot hc tcrnreJ lrr hc lrrr crrrrr citjrcr ol'Iau or proccdure rcquirirrr: illcrlcrancc in second appcal. f'his Cour-t irr Rcscnc llank of lndia & ,\nr. r,. llamakrishan (iorind \lor$..\ll{ (l()r-6)S( til0 held thar whcther triirl ctrurl shtrrrltl not lrrrc crclciscd its -iurisdiction ,.lillcIcntlr i\ not .i rlLresti()rr 1y1' 1211, -iustilyirrg intarlarcrea-
r5
th!' DIoir)tl1'l'lclrr itted thc same in his closs-cranriratic,r . lre tlial courl obserrr'd trat I l.lll \vas noI conncctcd to Illc Dr-'scn'. :Lrit t rtnsuction luncl thc clc .'n,,lu rt cor-rld ploccccl lurthcr as pcr lur', lor r::or crr ol'thc atIoL[rt liorrr tl c p]aintill' i1' aL all ]1grvils cnt tleci rnrler thc saicl clocunrent
l-\ Ihc l,rr' cr appcllate court also obsclr t'tl ha: tlr,: l.,lr intill' br crutrnring lrirr,s.: 1'as PW. I and craruinirtq l)\.1 rr htr rr r. tlrt :crihe ol' Lx.\ l aslre,'rr,--r r''ho also stated that thc delcntlarrt .r!r(t Li t.) :cli the pr()l)c11\ lbr a tc al sule consideraIion ol'Ils.].0().(l()(l - i' ire plr'\cncc ol'thc sliid uitu, s:, and t\o othcr u ittrcs:c. Ii ;1.11 1. ]J.1g rriuh lrntl Sc:hliah autl 1:rir,I it sum ol' Rs. 1.00.00() to llrc tiL lt'ntll | ()frlle (lJtc ol crcettliol ol'I x.Al and also spokcrr rhrt lrc ri:1. l !) ,.(.nt \hen tlrc plrrinrill'paid(s. j(),000/- to thc clcle nclunt on lr t)l( tt i :rr rl I r \l rcce il,t u lrs rlsrr.i:ribed by hirn at tlr!' ltousc ol litc Il rini ll :L r.'l P\ l \trtc(l tlllrt n hi lrcsencc the pl.rintil-l' ltrntle tl rit l) I). ior I{s l .'0.()0() Lo tlrc dc{enclrtnt on()7 0l l()()1 .Lnt i hc,l rcLcilrt sign( d rr tlrc dclinclultt in tL)l(cn ol ,rl.i.rl ti :, l l). lrntl eonsiclcrirrq tlic c:.rlrtnation ol'lcreci hr thc IllLirrrilt tlruL rrl . r itt ,rt'li.rccl t() I)u\ tlrr llln()Llr I iltto tltc io:tr.r Acrorrnt ol tlt.' d.le t(l.r I . I ). \liltd
6:1),
Dt.ORR,J s. t. \o.79s of2l)t7
t6
I;'inance Corporation had rrot allorr eci hinr. he l-.eing a third party, to thc tratlsaction and as suclt. thc dclintlant dcli, clccl [-rack tl'rc t).t). asking him to pay the arnour.rt in cash. thc dcllndant adrnitted passing of receipts under the Exs.Al and Ai obsen ccl tliar the dctl.ndant bcing a businessman would not dclir cr rccrintli \ ilhoLrl recci\ iug thc amounts shown therein and ilthe dctcndant hacl rrot lcccivcd thc arnount in cash fronr the plaintrllol Rs.1.70.()00'-. tltolc \us no e xnlanat.ion oflered by hirl as to wh1, hc issuctl thc t.'ecir.rt rrliil,.ri as l:r..\l us riell 35 thg receipt marked undcl l].x..,-1.( on:itl.:r'irrs thc adrlissiorls ntadc h1, [lrc defendant in his cv idcnce lt\ sul.,stuntial and couplcd with thc independent evidcncc ol- I)\'s.l .rrtl l. llre ioricr appcllatc court upheld the judgment of thc trial coult
Dr.0 R R.J , | ,r'95 t4 2()t.
,/
)'
lirI rhc 1'llrrrrl l' slartso'11\ rihcrl thc Statc lritl:tnt'( {rl n(rriltioll c\c.utL'(l I r. <sup>l :rrlcdcccl ilr litVor'rr-tll'thcdclcrrcll,rltoirii.()l'10()7 'trlci lirnr llrc clrrtc 0l I x..'lsaledeed, the suit ol'thc p ailrtit "rrsrrithinthc pcriotl rrl'l rttitlrtio I
lti.( rrrlt docs troL lind anl ncccssitrttl iitl.'tlr'l,r \itll thc jucllrrrcnt: 9l' I c c6u1ts belori' on these aspects s Iic I :tte prirrlllilr (luc.li()r,\ r,l'l:re L; \s thcrc arc no substanlial clLrc:tiorl';.'1 l11i i11''olrccl i(, r rt.rl:Lirr ll'eie corrcii\ppcal. Lhc SccontlAllpc ll L' ( i: lri'\c(l .ll llle \l.l!gj ()l t..1 ',1'5i,rt)
lS Itr lltr: r rs.rlt. the appeal is dismisscdaI tl-c 't.rrt 'rirt]trri' it'tl
\ Llll)tlt L()'.1</sup>
\l scr'llr n,roLls pctitions pending, if'anr. sl'rllstr rrrlcli)sc(i
//TRUE COPY//
SI)/-l.Nr\GA LAKSHMI DI:F,UTY REGISTRAR C,i,
SI:CTION OFFICER
To,
3 One CC to SRI V I/ANOHAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
4 Two CD {)op,ie' .
BSR
16il \
HIGH COU 1T
DATED: 24.10412023
JUDGMENI'
SA.No.795 t.f 2017
..?.:',( , STAT€
/,,!!
I'iiii lt'I
t
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAIiE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT C(1515
)
V 3L,,-
'l (t"
3 issues framed by the court
Whether both the lower courts were justified in decreeing the suit in the absence of valid evidence of payment of sale consideration?
Whether both the courts were justified in relying on the payment of sale consideration on 17.01.2004 when the plaintiff himself executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,20,000/- in favor of the defendant?
Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd.Relied on¶97
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akuthota Krishnaiah
A.D.B.Rama Lingaiah
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
