Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Mukunda Reddy vs A.Ramalingam on 30 March, 2026
APHC010147852024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA
RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 274/2024
Between:
Sri Mukunda Reddy ...APPELLANT
AND
S Chenchu Krishna Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. CH SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VALLURU CHETAN SUSHEEL
The Court made the following:
Reserved on 18.03.2026
Pronounced on 30.03.2026
Uploaded on 30.03.2026
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.274 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
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.
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
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:
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
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, dated 10.03.2006 for an amount of Rs.4,000/- and another
cheque bearing No.004289, dated 12.03.2008, for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- .
The defendant No.5 further pleaded that after complying with the statutory
obligations, he was put in possession of the above lands for establishment of
SEZ and except the above Ac.0.48 cents of land in the above three survey
numbers belonged to the plaintiff, the defendant No.5 has not purchased any
other land from the land in the schedule. The defendant No.5 further pleaded
that he was put in possession of the land on 18.07.2007, after complying
statutory obligations with APIIC as such the defendants are not liable to pay
compensation to the individual land owners, whose lands were acquired by the
Government after following the due process of law by paying compensation for
the lands acquired, as such, he requested for the dismissal of the suit.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues for trial:
1. Whether the 5th defendant has purchased lands from the plaintiff except
S.No.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3 to an extent of Ac.0.48 cents?
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
2. Whether the 5th defendant acquired the said lands after following due
process of law by paying compensation?
3. Whether the 5th defendant acquired more than Ac.0.05 cents of land in
S.No.360/2 situated at Chirugapalem in Sathyavedu Mandal?
4. Whether the suit claim made by the plaintiff is barred by limitation by
afflux of time?
5. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the
defendants as prayed for?
7. To what relief, if any?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1
was examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1
was examined and no documents were marked.
10. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing arguments of both
sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record,
dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful
plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.126 of 2023 on the file of the first
appellate Court.
11. The first appellate Court, after hearing arguments, allowed the appeal
suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the
defendant No.5 in O.S.No.112 of 2010 filed the present second appeal before
this Court.
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
12. On hearing both sides, at the time of admission of the second appeal on
30.01.2026, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Plaint Schedules can be amended when the First Appeal
was pending, so as to bring on record new/additional properties i.e.
Ac.2.24 cents in Sy.No.211/1,2 in Schedule-I; Ac.0.04 cents in
Sy.No.223/21; Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.223/3A in Schedule-II; and as
separate Schedule i.e. V Schedule to be added to the Plaint, on the
alleged ground of better adjudication?
2. Whether new/additional properties can be added to the Schedules of the
plaint as aforesaid and addition of a separate Schedule i.e. V Schedule to
the Plaint, when the Appeal was pending, in the absence of any
pleadings to that effect in the Plaint?
3. Whether the Respondent No.1/Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to any relief
of amendment of the plaint by adding new properties to the Schedules of
Plaint as aforesaid and addition of a separate Schedule i.e. V Schedule
to the Plaint, without mentioning the market value of the said properties
to be added to the amended schedules and addition of a separate
Schedule i.e. V Schedule to the Plaint, without payment of Court fee on
the value of such additional properties?
4. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in allowing amendment of
the Plaint Schedules as aforesaid and addition of a separate Schedule i.e.
V Schedule to the Plaint, without a finding that the said Court is satisfied
that in spite of due diligence, the Respondent herein could not introduce
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
amendment before commencement of trial, in terms of the Proviso to
Rule 17 to Order VI C.P.C?
On hearing learned counsel for the appellant, this Court on 30.01.2026,
framed the following additional substantial question of law:
1. Whether the first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court without hearing of appeal on merits so as to find
whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have
any relevance/bearing on the issues involved?
13. Heard Sri Ch.Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
defendant No.5, and Sri Valluru Chetan Susheel, learned counsel appearing for
respondents.
14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of C.P.C., the High Court
cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court
which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were
erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled
position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based
upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ plaintiff would contend tha the
present second appeal, which is filed against an order/judgment of remand
passed by the First Appellate Court, therefore, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, is maintainable and the present second appeal is not at all maintainable
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
against the judgment of the First Appellate Court and as such, the second
appeal is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
16. The First Appeal has been filed by defendant No.5 against the decree
and judgment passed in O.S.No.112 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Srikalahasthi. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial
Court framed as many as seven (07) issues and answered the issues and
dismissed the suit in O.S.No.112 of 2010 on merits. Aggrieved against the said
judgment and decree, the plaintiff in the said suit filed a regular first appeal
before the District Court, at Chittoor, and the same was made over to the XII
Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi, in accordance with law. The First
Appellate Court extracted the grounds of appeal in paragraph No.3 of the
judgment. The contents in the paragraph No.4 of the judgment of the First
Appellate Court is extracted as follows:
“4. To prove the above appeal grounds, plaintiff adduced oral and documentary
evidence before this court, meanwhile he filed I.A.No.573 of 2023 under Order VI, Rule
17 of C.P.C read with Rule 28 of C.R.P. praying for amendment of plaint as per
particulars mentioned in the petition schedule. Like-wise he also filed I.A.No.267 of 2023
under Order XLI, Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to
permit the petitioner to file the documents and also permit the petitioner to adduce
additional evidence. On perusal of both petitions averments along with documents
enclosed, those are original documents i.e., pattadar pass book, title deed, old ryothwari
passbooks and also cist payment receipts and there are some sale letters, sale
agreements. In view of the prayers submitted by the counsel for appellant, all the
original documents which are filed along with the petition shall be marked on behalf of
the petitioner and also it is very essential to decide the matter pinpointedly between the
parties to adduce additional evidence. Accordingly these points are answered in favour
of plaintiff”.
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
17. By narrating the aforesaid reasons, the First Appellate Court allowed the
first appeal and the total judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the matter
is remitted back to the trial Court. The First Appellate Judge/XII Additional
District Judge, Srikalahasthi, without framing the points for determination as
required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and
without answering each issue framed by the trial Court, disposed of the regular
first appeal in a cryptic manner.
18. How a regular first appeal has to be disposed of by the first appellate
Court has been considered by the Apex Court in various decisions. Order XLI
of C.P.C. deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various Rules,
Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the first appellate Court shall state:
a) the points for determination;
b) the decision thereon;
c) reasons for the decision; and
d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to
which the appellant is entitled.
19. It is settled position of law that an first appeal is a continuation of the
proceedings of the original Court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves
re-hearing on law as well as on fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person.
The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of
fact and law decided by the trial Court is open for reconsideration. Therefore,
the First Appellate Court is required to address itself to all the issues and
decide the case by giving reasons. The Court of first appeal must record its
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
findings only after dealing with all issues of law as well as fact and with the
evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. The judgment of the
First Appellate Court must display conscious application of mind and record
findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions.
20. In H.Siddiqui (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs A.Ramalingam1, the Apex Court held
as follows:
“The provision under XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. provides guidelines for the appellate Court
as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read
in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be
taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate
Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and
decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial
compliance of the said provisions if the appellate Court’s judgment is based on the
independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter
and the findings of the appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing. It is
mandatory for the appellate Court to independently assess the evidence of the parties
and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the
evidence on those points. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate Court must not
record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it
must given reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial Court.
Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise
should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said
provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said
statutory provisions.”
21. The judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.126 of 2023, on the
file of the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi, reveals that the appellant
filed I.A.No.573 of 2023, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, for amendment of the plaint in the original suit before the First Appellate
1
MANU/SC/0174/2011
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
Court, and the First Appellate Court simply allowed the said application at the
appellate stage without giving any reasons. As could be seen from the
judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.126 of 2023, a petition under
Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
vide I.A.No.267 of 2023 was filed before the First Appellate Court to permit the
appellant to produce the additional evidence. The First Appellate Court has not
even decided the said application on merits and without giving any reasons, the
First Appellate Court simply allowed the application filed under Order XLI Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
22. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside
the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal.
However, as an exception under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, enables the Appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional
circumstances. The proviso under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, permits the party to produce additional evidence before the
Appellate Court, provided that it has to come under the ambit of Order XLI Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The First Appellate Court has not dealt
the procedure prescribed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, in allowing the application vide I.A.No.267 of 2023, in a
proper manner and without giving any reasons the First Appellate Court simply
allowed the said petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, as if the party filed the original documents viz., pattadar pass
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
book, title deed and land revenue receipts before the First Appellate Court in
the said Interlocutory Application.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in Narayanan Vs
Kumaran and Others2, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
“In a case of Kaluvaroya Pillai & Ors. v. Ganesa Pandithan & Ors. (AIR 1969
Madras 148), the Apex Court held as follows:-
“Though this is a case in which the lower appellate Court remanded the suit. It
appears to me that the totality of the suit has been remanded to the trial Court for
reconsideration in view of certain irregularities inhered therein. As a matter of fact
the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in
full. Though it gave a liberty to the respondents to have a retrial in the trial Court,
presumably, in the interests of justice, it appears to me that the lower appellate
Court has substituted its own judgment to that of the trial Court and in the peculiar
circumstances of the present case it is not open to the appellants in this civil
miscellaneous appeal to canvass the entire judgment and decree of the lower
appellate Court by filing an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (u), C.P.C. I shall
presently advert to the right of an appellant in a civil miscellaneous appeal to
canvass the correctness of the findings other than those relating to the order of
remand in such an appeal. But in so far as this appeal is concerned, as there has
been a substitution of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court to that of the
trial Court, the only remedy available to the appellants in this case was to file a
second appeal, if appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (u), C.P.C. Thus in the peculiar
circumstances and on the facts of this case, it is not open to the appellants to
canvass the other findings of the lower appellate Court”.”
The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to the
present facts of the case. As stated supra, against the decree and judgment
passed by the trial Court, the first appeal has been filed before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court without following the procedure as
required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
set-aside the total judgment of the trial Court and simply the matter is remitted
back to the trial Court which is unknown to law.
2
(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 26
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
24. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in Jegannathan
and Other Vs Raju Sigamani3, wherein the High Court of Madras, at Madurai
Bench, followed the ratio laid down in the case of Narayanan Vs Kumaran and
Others, as stated supra. In the case on hand, the First Appellate Court by
remanding the matter, the total judgment of the trial Court is set-aside without
following the mandatory provisions laid down under Order XLI Rule 31 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in
Pulipati Naga Venkata Krishna Rao Vs Shafathunissa vide C.M.A.No.06 of
2018, dated 16.09.2022, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The
ratio laid down in the said case law is not at all applicable to the present case.
In the case at hand, the trial Court has framed as many as seven (07) issues
and disposed of the suit on merits, against which a regular first appeal has
been filed before the First Appellate Court, and the First Appellate Court
disposed of the first appeal in an unsatisfactory manner without following the
provisions under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As
noticed supra, the first appeal is the valuable right of the parties and unless
restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both the
questions of fact and law. Sitting of a Court of appeal, it is the duty of the First
Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and evidences led by the parties
before recording its findings. On going through the impugned judgment passed
by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi/the First Appellate
3
2008-4-L.W.1008
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
Judge, I feel that the District Court/the First Appellate Court has failed to
discharge the obligation placed on it as a First Appellate Court. In my view, the
judgment under the appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have
even been noticed and the first appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory
manner by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi. The First
Appellate Court without following the provisions as stated supra under Order
XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allowed the appeal in a
routine manner without discussing the mandatory provisions and without giving
any reasons, allowed the interlocutory applications as stated supra on the
ground that the appellant has filed the original documents before the First
Appellate Court.
26. In the case at hand, the First Appellate Court has not even framed the
points for determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Furthermore, a petition in I.A.No.573 of 2023, under
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of the
plaint and a petition in I.A.No.267 of 2023, under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, were filed before the First Appellate Court at the First
Appellate stage and the First Appellate Court has not even decided the said
applications on merits and without giving any reasons the First Appellate Court
simply allowed the said applications and remanded the matter to the trial Court
for fresh disposal. In my view, the first appeal has been decided in an
unsatisfactory manner.
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
27. It is a well defined legal principle that the rules of procedure are the
hand made of justice. Hence, they shall not be narrowly construed. The
procedural laws are designed to facilitate justice and interpreting them
purely in a technical manner leaves no room for reasonable interpretation.
28. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court is not legally sustainable and it is not in accordance with the
provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the First
Appellate Court has not even framed the relevant points for consideration viz.,
namely:
1. Whether the defendant No.5 purchased an extent of Ac.0.48 cents of
land in Sy.Nos.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3, from the plaintiff?
2. Whether the defendant No.5 was put in possession of the land on
18.07.2007, after complying the statutory obligations with Andhra
Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (APIIC)?
3. Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit
amount from the defendants as sought for?
4. Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff therein is entitled to the relief of
amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Rules of
Practice, vide I.A.No.573 of 2023, at the First Appellate Stage?
5. Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff is permitted to produce additional
evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, vide I.A.No.267 of 2023?
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
29. On the conspectus of the pleadings of law, the decree and judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court is unsustainable and is liable to be set
aside. Therefore, interest of justice requires that the matter has to be remitted
back to the First Appellate Court i.e. the XII Additional District Judge,
Srikalahasthi, with a direction to frame the relevant points for determination as
stated supra and afford an opportunity to both the parties to submit hearing on
points to be framed in accordance with law and dispose of the first appeal on
merits. For this purpose, this Court has set up the following points for
determination in the first appeal to be decided by the First Appellate Court:
1. Whether the defendant No.5 purchased an extent of Ac.0.48 cents of
land in Sy.Nos.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3, from the plaintiff?
2. Whether the defendant No.5 was put in possession of the land on
18.07.2007, after complying the statutory obligations with Andhra
Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (APIIC)?
3. Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit
amount from the defendants as sought for?
4. Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff therein is entitled to the relief of
amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Rules of
Practice, vide I.A.No.573 of 2023, at the First Appellate Stage?
5. Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff is permitted to produce additional
evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, vide I.A.No.267 of 2023?
VGKR, J.
SA_274_2024
30. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed and 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, is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the first appellate Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to both
the parties to submit hearing on the points set up supra by this Court and to
dispose of the first appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the
findings recorded in its earlier judgment dated 05.02.2024. The entire exercise
shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, is hereby
directed to transmit the trial Court record forthwith to the XII Additional District
Judge, Srikalahasthi. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in consequence. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Date: 30.03.2026
SRT