Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ravinuthala Venkata Srinivasa Rao vs Ramdhar Singh And Others on 24 March, 2026
APHC010593782023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 660/2023
Between:
Ravinuthala Venkata Srinivasa Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Smt Ravinuthala Krishna Kumari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. PARTY IN PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM
2. SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD
The Court made the following:
Reserved on 18.02.2026
Pronounced on 24.03.2026
Uploaded on 24.03.2026
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.660 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree
dated 18.08.2023, in A.S.No.180 of 2019, on the file of the I Additional District
Judge, Guntur, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 23.07.2019, in
O.S.No.326 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 11 are
the defendants in O.S.No.326 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Guntur. During the pendency of appeal suit, the respondent No.8
herein i.e. the defendant No.8 in O.S.No.326 of 2017, died and the respondent
Nos.12 to 14 herein were brought on record as the legal representatives of the
deceased respondent No.8 herein.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.326 of 2017 on the file of the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, with a prayer for declaration of the sale
of schedule property held on 16.12.1999 in Final Decree proceedings in
I.A.No.103 of 2000, in O.S.No.198 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Guntur and confirmed on 31.10.2001 in favour of the defendant
No.8 as null and void and for consequential order to set the sale certificate
dated 31.12.2001 issued in I.A.No.103 of 2000, by the learned Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, to the defendant No.8 concerning the suit
schedule property and for costs.
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
4. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, after conclusion of
trial, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the
unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.180 of
2019, before the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned I
Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the
unsuccessful plaintiff 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.326 of 2017, is as follows:
The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Ravinuthala
Rama Koteswara Rao, the father of the plaintiff, who had acquired the same
during his lifetime under a gift executed by his father-in-law. The said
Ravinuthala Rama Koteswara Rao died intestate in or about the year 1960.
Upon his death, his legal heirs, namely his wife, four sons (including the
plaintiff), and two daughters, succeeded to the suit schedule property in equal
shares. The plaintiff pleaded that the elder brother of the plaintiff, late
R.Venkata Suryanarayana, during his lifetime, instituted a suit in
O.S.No.198 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Guntur, against his mother, the plaintiff herein, his two other brothers,
and two sisters, seeking partition of the suit schedule property, including the
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
residential house existing thereon, into seven equal shares and for allotment
of one such share to him. The said suit was decreed preliminarily on
20.12.1984. The plaintiff further pleaded that an application in
I.A.No.1374 of 1985 was filed for passing of a final decree for division of the
property by metes and bounds in accordance with the preliminary decree and
prior to the filing of the said application, the mother of the plaintiff executed a
registered Will bequeathing her 1/7th share in the suit schedule property in
favour of the plaintiff and the 8th defendant herein and subsequently, during
the pendency of the final decree proceedings in January, 1986, she died.
The plaintiff further pleaded that during the course of the final decree
proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for effecting division
of the property and the Commissioner reported that the property was not
capable of convenient partition and the Court ordered sale of the property by
way of auction among the co-sharers. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the
auction conducted by the Court-appointed Receiver on 16.12.1999, the
property was knocked down in favour of the 8th defendant herein, who was the
second respondent in I.A.No.1374 of 1985, for a sum of Rs.3,03,000/-. The
plaintiff further pleaded that challenging the said auction sale, one Ravinuthala
Suryanarayana filed I.A.No.103 of 2000 in I.A.No.1374 of 1985, contending
that the property was sold for a lesser price and that the sale was vitiated by
fraud and irregularities. The plaintiff pleaded that the said application was
contested by the plaintiff and the 8th defendant herein through their common
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
counsel Sri K. Krishna Kishore and after full contest, the said application was
dismissed on merits.
The plaintiff pleaded that a final decree was passed in I.A.No.1374 of
1985 on 31.10.2001, specifying the respective shares of the parties in the sale
proceeds deposited by the auction purchaser and the Court also confirmed
the sale in favour of the 8th defendant on the same date, and a sale certificate
was issued in his favour on 01.12.2001.The plaintiff further pleaded that the
8th defendant, taking undue advantage of the confirmation of sale and
issuance of the sale certificate in his favour, acted in a manner detrimental to
the interests of the plaintiff, which is a complete violation of the terms of an
understanding and agreement which is reduced into writing under a document
dated 09.07.2000. The plaintiff further pleaded that as such, the plaintiff
instituted a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Guntur, against the defendant Nos.8 and 9, seeking partition of the suit
schedule property into two equal shares in terms of the said agreement dated
09.07.2000. The defendant No.8, who was the defendant No.1 therein, filed a
written statement admitting the existence of the said agreement dated
09.07.2000 between himself and the plaintiff.
The plaintiff pleaded that the said suit in O.S. No.46 of 2003 was
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 09.06.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the
plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2006 on the file of the V
Additional District Judge, Guntur, which was also dismissed, confirming the
judgment and decree of the trial Court and the plaintiff thereafter preferred a
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
second appeal before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at
Hyderabad, which was also dismissed on 28.11.2011, confirming the
judgments of both the Courts below. The plaintiff futher pleaded that he filed
Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was
dismissed. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.8 cannot be
permitted to unjustly enrich himself and enjoy the fruits of the auction sale
obtained by fraud and deception, as fraud and justice cannot co-exist. He
further pleaded that any advantage gained by such fraudulent means cannot
be allowed to be retained and as such the plaintiff filed the present suit.
7. The defendant No.8 filed written statement before the trial Court and the
other defendants remained set-exparte before the trial Court. The brief
averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.8 are as follows:
The plaintiff is an advocate for defendant No.8, he is not only the
counsel but also the elder brother of defendant No.8 and taking undue
advantage of such relationship, the plaintiff used to obtain the signatures of
defendant No.8 on blank papers and blank stamp papers, exercising
dominance and undue influence over him. The defendant No.8 pleaded that
without enquiring about the purpose or contents of the documents, he used to
sign wherever required by the plaintiff. The defendant No.8 further pleaded
that in his written statement he pleaded that the plaintiff have fabricated the
alleged agreement dated 09.07.2000 and that he had never executed any
such agreement. The defendant No.8 pleaded that he never executed the said
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
agreement dated 09.07.2000 and the same is a fabricated document brought
into existence by misuse of signed blank papers by the defendant No.8.
The defendant No.8 further pleaded that the Court auction was
conducted on 16.12.1999, and the sale was confirmed and a sale certificate
was issued in favour of this defendant on 01.12.2001 and delivery of
possession of the suit schedule property was effected on 10.06.2002 and from
then the defendant No.8 has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property, and the same is the joint family property. The defendant No.8 furthe
pleaded that nearly fifteen (15) years have elapsed from the date of delivery of
possession till the filing of the present suit, and as such, the suit is hopelessly
barred by limitation. The defendant No.8 further pleaded that the present suit
is devoid of bona fides and has been instituted only to harass the defendant
No.8 and further, the plaintiff is a chronic litigant. The defendant No.8 furthe
pleaded that the issue relating to alleged fraud in the conduct of auction was
raised for the first time by the eldest brother of the plaintiff by name R.Venkata
Suryanarayana, in I.A.No.103 of 2000 in I.A.No.1374 of 1985 and the said
application was dismissed on merits, and thereafter, the final decree was
passed. Aggrieved thereby, the said Suryanarayana preferred C.R.P.No.4513
of 2001 before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad,
which was also dismissed on merits.
The defendant No.8 further pleaded that in all the above proceedings,
the plaintiff was a party, and he did not support the allegations of fraud raised
by his brother and he denied that any fraud had taken place and that the
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
plaintiff is estopped from now raising the plea of fraud in the present suit. The
defendant No.8 further pleaded that the present suit is barred by the principles
of res judicata, as the allegation of fraud in the conduct of auction sale has
already been considered and rejected by competent Courts in earlier
proceedings, which have attained finality. He further pleaded that the plaintiff,
have filed I.A.No.601 of 2002 and withdrawn his share of the sale
consideration deposited into Court by this defendant on 25.04.2002, without
reserving any alleged right to question the sale. The defendant No.8 further
pleaded that having accepted and received his share of the sale proceeds, the
plaintiff is estopped from challenging the auction sale on any ground and as
such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned I Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Guntur, framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the preliminary decree and final decree in O.S.No.198 of 1983
is obtained by fraud as contended by the plaintiff?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare that the sale of plaint schedule
property and its confirmation on 31.10.2001 in favour of the 8th
defendant is null and void?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to set aside the sale certificate dated
31.12.2001 as prayed for? and
4) To what relief?
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
9. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,
P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-21 were marked. On behalf of the
defendants D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked.
10. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, after conclusion of
trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and
documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved
thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed the appeal suit in
2019, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the
following points came up for consideration:
1) Whether the impugned Decree and Judgment dated 23.07.2019 of the
trial Court is sustainable either factually or legally? and
2) To what relief?
11. The learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, i.e., the first appellate
Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against
the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the plaintiff . Felt aggrieved
of the same, the plaintiff in O.S.No.326 of 2017 filed the present second
appeal before this Court.
12. Heard Sri Ravinuthala Venkata Srinivasa Rao, party-in-person/appellant
and Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.
13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor
an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with
law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of C.P.C., could be
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question
of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining
whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or
whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so,
whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by
the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of
alternative views. To be “substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not
previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a
material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar
as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law
“involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the
pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of
fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that
question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. Mere appreciation of
facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be
raising a substantial question of law.
14. The plaintiff having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles
and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law.
15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by
both the Courts below, therefore, the grounds urged in the second appeal are
to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial
question of law. The contention of appellant is that the judgment and decree of
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that
the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree
passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court as well as the first
appellate Court.
16. The undisputed facts are that a suit in O.S.No.198 of 1983, on the file of
the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Guntur, has been filed for partition of the plaint
schedule property by the elder brother of the plaintiff against all the co-sharers
including the plaintiff, and a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit,
and the appellant herein is also one of the defendants in the said suit. After
passing the preliminary decree in the aforesaid suit, a final decree petition was
filed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Since the property is
indivisible, it is ordered to conduct an auction between the co-sharers.
Accordingly, the auction was conducted and the bid amount was deposited,
and the said amount was also withdrawn by the respective co-sharers.
17. The appellant herein also filed a petition I.A.No.__ of 2015, in
O.S.No.198 of 1983, under Sections 144 and 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, against his brothers and sisters in the suit in O.S.No.198 of
1983, with a prayer to set aside the auction proceedings dated 16.12.1999 in
I.A.No.103 of 2000 and also to set aside the sale certificate said to have been
issued by the Court in favour of the auction purchaser/the defendant No.8.
The said application was rejected by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Guntur, against which the appellant herein filed a Civil Revision Petition before
the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the same was also
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
dismissed by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, against which the
appellant herein has preferred Special Leave Petition No.27646 of 2015, and
the same was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.10.2015.
18. The present second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings
arrived at by both the Courts below viz., in O.S.No.326 of 2017, on the file of
the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, and in A.S.No.180 of 2018, on the
file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appellant herein is the
plaintiff in the said suit, and the respondents herein are the defendants in the
said suit in O.S.No.326 of 2017.
19. The appellant contended that both the Courts below failed to appreciate
Ex.A-8, Ex.A-13 to Ex.A-16, and Ex.B-1 in a proper manner and dismissed the
suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2003 before the trial Court. As could
be seen from Ex.A-7, Ex.A-8, and Ex.A-13 to Ex.A-16, Ex.A-7 is the plaint in
O.S.No.46 of 2003, filed by the appellant herein, Ex.A-8 is the written
statement of the auction purchaser filed in the said suit, Ex.A-13 is the
certified copy of the judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.46 of 2003,
Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which
relates to the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003, Ex.A-14 is the certified copy of the
judgment of the second appeal in S.A.No.1538 of 2007, which relates to the
suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003, Ex.A-15 is the certified copy of the judgment in
S.L.P.No.10181 of 2012, which relates to the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003, and
Ex.A-16 is the certified copy of the order passed in the Curative Application
(Civil) No.221 of 2012, by the Hon’ble Apex Court. All the aforesaid
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
documents relate to O.S.No.46 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Guntur.
20. As seen from the plaint averments in O.S.No.46 of 2003, the appellant
herein filed O.S.No.46 of 2003, against his own brother and the wife of his
another brother for seeking relief of partition based on Ex.A-1 alleged
agreement said to have been executed by the appellant herein and the
defendant No.1 in the said suit. The said suit was filed for seeking relief of
partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares by metes and
bounds as prescribed in the alleged agreement dated 09.07.2000. In the plaint
in O.S.No.46 of 2003, it was reiterated by the appellant herein about the
earlier proceedings of suit for partition vide O.S.No.198 of 1983, filed by his
elder brother, and also passing of preliminary decree and final decree in the
said suit, and also conducting of auction among the co-owners by the trial
Court in O.S.No.198 of 1983 among the co-sharers, since the property is
indivisible, and the schedule property was auctioned by the Court among the
co-owners, and the bid amount was deposited, and the sale certificate was
also issued by the Court in favour of the auction purchaser a long back, and
all the co-sharers including the plaintiff herein withdrew their respective share
amounts..
21. As per the plaint averments in O.S.No.46 of 2003, on 15.12.1999, in
pursuance of the advice of some of the family friends, an agreement was
arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, to retain the house
property jointly for themselves with equal rights by participating in the auction
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
and subscribing the amounts equally towards the bid amount, and the
plaintiff/appellant herein and the defendant No.1 therein agreed that both of
them should pay a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant No.2 as a
benevolent gesture with a view to keep her and her children financially sound
and self-sustained. The appellant herein i.e., the plaintiff in the said suit further
pleaded that immediately after the bid was knocked down for a total sale price
of Rs.3,03,000/-, the plaintiff herein contributed Rs.40,000/- in cash to the
defendant No.1, towards his share, and the plaintiff further pleaded that in
pursuance of the understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1
and 2, and the same was reduced into writing on 09.07.2000, on a stamped
paper duly signed by them before the elders who attested the same. The
defendant No.1/auction purchaser specifically denied the alleged Ex.A-1
agreement in the said suit, and he specifically contended that the said Ex.A-1
alleged agreement is not true and it is not valid and also not enforceable
under law. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court dismissed the said suit in
O.S.No.46 of 2003, against which the appellant herein filed the first appeal
before the District Court vide A.S.No.145 of 2006, and the same was
dismissed on contest by both sides, against which the appellant herein filed
S.A.No.1538 of 2007 before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at
Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed on merits.
22. The Second Appellate Court/the Composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, at Hyderabad, in connection with the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003, as
stated supra, in its judgment held that “the property was sold in the Court for
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
below the actual price of the subject matter of the suit, obviously and has
rightly been held by the Courts below, it is the result of an agreement between
the appellant and the respondent No.1, which the appellant intended to knock
away the property to the detriment of other co-sharers”, against which the
appellant herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court,
and the same was dismissed. After dismissal of the said Special Leave
Petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appellant herein filed a Curative
Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the same was also dismissed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the appellant herein was defeated in all
the Courts i.e., from the trial Court to the Apex Court, in O.S.No.46 of 2003,
which was instituted by the plaintiff before the trial Court based on the alleged
agreement said to have been executed between the appellant and the auction
purchaser/the defendant No.1 in the said suit.
23. The appellant would contend that the trial Court to the Apex Court gave
a finding in O.S.No.46 of 2003 that due to the fraud played by the defendant
No.8 (Prakash Rao), the valuable property was sold for a lesser value,
causing loss to the other co-sharers, who are the defendants in O.S.No.198 of
1983. As could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.46 of
2003, the trial Court held in its judgment that the alleged Ex.A-1 agreement
between the appellant herein and his brother Prakash Rao/the defendant No.1
therein is an unlawful and void agreement within the meaning of Section 23 of
the Indian Contract Act and that consequently, the same is inoperative, and
the learned trial Judge further held in its judgment that the suit claim for
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
partition made on the basis of Ex.A-1 is unsustainable, and as such, the
plaintiff therein/the appellant herein is not entitled to partition as sought by the
plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2003. The Second Appellate Court/the Composite
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, also held that “Ex.A-1
agreement in O.S.No.46 of 2003 is a result of an agreement between the
appellant herein and the respondent No.1 therein, which the appellant herein
intends to knock away the property which is to the detriment of the other co-
sharers”. As noticed supra, against which a Special Leave Petition was filed
before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the appellant herein, and the Hon’ble Apex
Court also held that the trial Court and First Appellate Court have held that
Ex.A-1 agreement entered into between the appellant herein and the
respondent No.1 therein to manipulate the price for purchase of the property,
which was auctioned in furtherance of the decree passed in O.S.No.198 of
1983, was ultra vires under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, and the
Apex Court confirmed all the judgments viz., the trial Court, the First Appellate
Court, and the Second Appellate Court, and dismissed the Special Leave
Petition. As stated supra, the appellant herein had also filed a curative
application vide Curative Petition (Civil) No.221 of 2012, and the same was
also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. For the reasons best known to the
appellant herein, the appellant herein purposefully omitted his role to bring into
existence of the alleged Ex.A-1 agreement in the said suit and threw the entire
responsibility on the auction purchaser to show that he is unconnected with
the bid knocked down for the lowest price, and it leads to the conclusion that
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
the sale was confirmed to the auction purchaser by the trial Court. Even if it is
assume, in pursuance of the alleged agreement between the appellant herein
and the auction purchaser i.e., Ex.A-1 in the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003, if any
fraud is committed, the appellant herein is not entitled to seek declaratory
relief as sought in the present suit, since he is a party to the alleged unlawful
agreement. The law is well settled that “Wrong doer ought not to be
permitted to make profit out of his own wrong”. It is also a settled principle
of law that “no one is entitled to take advantage of his own wrongs”.
24. As stated supra, the appellant/plaintiff herein came to the Court in the
present suit before the trial Court with unclean hands as if he is in no way
connected with the auction conducted subsequent to the final decree
proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.198 of 1983. The appellant herein is not a
third party to the alleged agreement, he is the co-owner, and he is none other
than the own brother of the auction purchaser, and he himself participated in
the auction, and after confirmation of the sale, he had withdrawn his share
amount from the trial Court, and all the Courts from the Senior Civil Judge
Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court have concurrently held that the alleged
Ex.A-1 agreement between the appellant herein and the defendant
No.8/auction purchaser is a void agreement for getting unlawful gain by the
appellant herein and his brother/auction purchaser in the said suit. The
appellant herein for the reasons best known to him has purposefully omitted
his role in Ex.A-1 alleged agreement and got filed the present suit as if he is in
no way connected with alleged Ex.A-1 agreement in the suit proceedings in
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
O.S.No.46 of 2003. “A person who entered into the unlawful agreement with
another person for unlawful gain is not entitled to come to the Court” for
seeking declaratory relief that the sale of the schedule property held on
16.12.1999 in the final decree proceedings in favour of the defendant No.8 in
the present suit is null and void. Admittedly, the auction was conducted among
all the co-sharers, since the property is indivisible, except the elder brother of
the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the other co-sharers did not challenge the sale.
Even the elder brother of the plaintiff filed a petition to challenge the same on
the ground of irregularity and fraud, the said petition was dismissed by the trial
Court, which was confirmed by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
at Hyderabad. The plaintiff herein also filed petitions to set aside the sale on
the ground of alleged fraud before the Civil Court, and his application was
dismissed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the composite High
Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Apex Court.
25. As could be seen from the entire material on record, the elder brother of
the plaintiff herein i.e., the plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 1983, filed a petition vide
I.A.No.103 of 2000, questioning the validity of the auction on the ground of the
alleged fraud. The appellant herein is the respondent who contested in the
said application and contended that the auction was perfectly conducted
therein, and the petition filed by the elder brother of the plaintiff was
dismissed. The sale price deposited by auction purchaser was withdrawn by
all the co-sharers including the plaintiff herein without any protest and the sale
certificate was issued on 01.12.2001 in favour of the auction purchaser.
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
Moreover, the appellant herein being a practicing advocate filed a Vakalat
along with one K.Krishna Kishore, advocate, on behalf of the auction
purchaser Prakash Rao in I.A.No.1374 of 1985, and the said Vakalat got
exhibited as Ex.A-1. As noticed supra, the appellant herein, who is
responsible for the alleged Ex.A-1 agreement in O.S.No.46 of 2003 and who
was defeated from the trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court in the suit
proceedings in O.S.No.46 of 2003 is not entitled to seek any declaratory relief
as sought in the present suit, since he is a party to the alleged unlawful
agreement.
26. The appellant herein as P.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-
examination itself that he appeared as an advocate in the final decree petition
on behalf of the auction purchaser along with one K.Krishna Kishore,
advocate, and he is also one of the parties and also appeared as an advocate
on behalf of the defendant No.8 herein. He further admits that “there are no
material irregularities and there is no fraud in conducting the auction
sale proceedings and they succeeded that the auction was properly
conducted”. Even as per the own version of the appellant herein, there are
no material irregularities in conducting the auction.
27. The appellant herein as a plaintiff in the suit admits that the defendant
No.8 is the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 16.12.1999 and he was
the highest bidder as per the family i.e., all the co-sharers understanding
includes parties to the suit, and as per the final decree, the auction proceeds
were disbursed among all the co-sharers, and the defendant No.8 herein
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
deposited the said amount. He further admits that he himself along with the
other sharers withdrew the deposited amount by filing a cheque petition and
“he has not re-deposited the cheque even after the said fraud was noticed by
him, and the property was delivered to the auction purchaser in the year
2003″, and he further admits that the defendant No.8 herein constructed a
two-storied RCC building by spending huge amounts”.
28. It is well settled that, as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 of Order
XXI, C.P.C., merely on the ground of irregularity or fraud, the sale shall not be
set aside unless substantial injury has been caused to the objector by reason
of such irregularity or fraud. Moreover, the plaintiff herein and his elder brother
questioned the sale before the trial Court by filing petitions, the same are
dismissed by the trial Court. It is necessary to prove that a substantial injury
where fraud or material irregularity has taken place, whereby injustice has
been suffered. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajender Singh Vs.
Ramdhar Singh and Others1, that “mere inadequacy of the price is not a
ground for setting aside the Court sale”. The alleged fraud and irregularity
in conducting the sale, as raised by the appellant was disbelieved by all the
Courts, having been defeated in all the Courts i.e., from the trial Court to the
Hon’ble Apex Court, after a lapse of twelve (12) years, the appellant herein
approached the Civil Court and filed O.S.No.326 of 2017, for seeking
declaratory relief that the sale held on 16.12.1999, is liable to be set aside on
the ground of alleged fraud. As stated supra, the alleged fraud has to be
1
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2220
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
properly pleaded and proved by the plaintiff herein, who approached the Court
for seeking declaratory relief. But, except his self-testimony as P.W.1, no other
evidence was produced by the plaintiff herein.
29. The appellant placed reliance on Maria Margarida Sequeria
Fernander and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead) through
L.Rs.2
The appellant also placed reliance on Cauvery Coffee Traders,
Mangalore Vs Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited 3 ,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“34. A party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold”, “fast and loose” or
“approbate and reprobate”. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or
conveyance or an order, is stopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such
contract or conveyance or order.”
The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003 based on Ex.A-1, and
the trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court gave a concurrent finding that Ex.A-1
in O.S.No.46 of 2003 is a result of an unlawful and invalid agreement in
between the plaintiff herein and the auction purchaser. Therefore, the facts
and circumstances in the aforesaid case laws are different from the instant
case.
30. The appellant placed reliance on Agarwal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of
India and another. 4 The facts in the present case does not relate to the
2
2012 (3) SCJ 518
3
(2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 420
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
31. The appellant also relied on a Full Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another 5 ,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“43. …
(i)…
(ii)…
(iii)…
(iv)…
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing
the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law
contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of
Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is
stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the
parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent
thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country.”
In the case at hand, the appellant was defeated in O.S.No.46 of 2003,
who is the plaintiff in the said suit, and he himself approached the Civil Court,
and after defeated in all the Courts from the trial Court to the Composite High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant herein approached the Apex Court,
and the Hon’ble Apex Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition and the
Curative Application filed by the appellant herein in connection with O.S.No.46
of 2003, and the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the findings of all the Courts
below in O.S.No.46 of 2003. As noticed supra, all the Courts, including the
Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the alleged Ex.A-1 agreement between the
appellant and the auction purchaser is unlawful and it is unenforceable, and it
is against law.
4
2016 (5) ALT 795 (D.B.)
5
(2000) AIR (SC) 2587
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
32. The Second Appellate Court/the Composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, at Hyderabad, held that “the property was sold in a Court auction far
below the actual price of the subject matter of the suit, obviously, and as
rightly held by the Courts below, it is the result of an agreement between the
appellant and the first respondent, which the appellant intended to knock away
the property to the detriment of other co-sharers”. The auction purchaser
specifically denied the Ex.A-1 agreement in O.S.No.46 of 2003, and he
contested in the said suit, and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court,
which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, Second Appellate Court,
and also the Hon’ble Apex Court. The appellant herein purposefully omitted
his role in the said alleged agreement in the present suit and he is giving a
clean chit to himself and filed the present suit in O.S.No.326 of 2017. As
stated supra, the person who approached the Court with unclean hands is not
entitled to seek any relief. As noticed supra, “Wrong doer ought not to be
permitted to make profit out of his own wrong”.
33. The appellant placed another reliance on Narinder Singh Vs Surjit
Singh6. The facts and circumstances in the aforesaid case law relates to the
Election disputes in the State Legislature at Punjab and Haryana.
34. Ex.A-17 to Ex.A-20 filed by the appellant goes to show that after
dismissal of the SLP No.10181 of 2012 and Curative Petition (Civil) No.221 of
2012, which relates to O.S.No.46 of 2003, having been defeated in all the
Courts from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, to the Hon’ble Apex Court,
6
AIR 1984 SC 1359
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application in the year 2014 in
I.A.No.1374 of 1985 in O.S.No.198 of 1983, under Sections 144 and 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to set aside the auction
proceedings and sale certificate dated 31.12.2001, on the ground of alleged
fraud, and the said application was rejected by the Executing Court/I
Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, vide its order dated 21.04.2015,
by giving detailed reasons. Ex.A-19 goes to show that, aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant herein filed C.R.P.No.2091 of 2015, and the same was
dismissed by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad,
and Ex.A-20 goes to show that after dismissal of C.R.P.No.2091 of 2015, the
appellant herein filed S.L.P.No.27646 of 2015, and the same was also
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.10.2015. Therefore, it is evident
that the appellant availed all the remedies to challenge the sale on the ground
of alleged fraud as raised in the present suit, having been defeated from the
Executing Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appellant herein again filed the
present suit in O.S.No.326 of 2017 after seventeen (17) years of confirming
the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. The trial Court, after completion of
the trial and on hearing both sides, dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate
Court also confirmed the said finding given by the trial Court, and the plaintiff
in the said suit filed the present second appeal before this Court to challenge
the decrees and judgments passed by both the Courts below.
35. As noticed supra, except examining the plaintiff himself as P.W.1, no
other evidence is produced by the plaintiff to prove the alleged fraud played by
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
the auction purchaser. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross-
examination that “there are no material irregularities and there is no fraud in
conducting the auction sale proceedings and they succeeded that the auction
was properly conducted”. He further admits that the defendant No.8 is the
highest bidder in the auction conducted on 16.12.1999, and no party raised
any objection for the said auction. He further admits that as per the final
decree, the auction proceeds were distributed among all the co-sharers, and
the defendant No.8 herein deposited the said amount. He further admits that
he himself, along with other co-sharers, withdrew the deposited amount by
filing the cheque petitions. Another admission made by him in his evidence is
that he has not raised any objection, along with the other sharers, for the
delivery of the property to the auction purchaser.
36. The material on record indicates that the auction was conducted among
all the co-sharers on 16.12.1999. None of the co-sharers raised any objection
at the time of the auction, and the bid was knocked down in favour of the
auction purchaser, and the auction purchaser deposited the bid amount, and
all the co-sharers withdrew their respective share amounts, and the appellant
herein also withdrew his share amount without any protest. As noticed supra,
since the schedule property is indivisible, the auction was conducted as per
the orders of the Court among the co-sharers. The material on record further
goes to show that the elder brother of the plaintiff by name Ravinuthala
Venkata Suryanarayana filed I.A.No.103 of 2000 in I.A.No.1374 of 1985,
questioning the sale on various grounds including the fraud and on the ground
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
that the property was sold fraudulently for a lesser price, and the auction
purchaser, who is the defendant No.8, contested the petition filed by the said
Suryanarayana, and on merits, the said petition was dismissed by the
Executing Court by holding that there was no fraud in conducting the auction,
and the same fact was known to all the sharers, including the plaintiff herein
away back in the year 2001. The documentary evidence produced by the
appellant itself goes to show that the fraud pleaded by the appellant was
raised by the appellant himself in Ex.A-17 proceedings, and he was defeated
in the Executing Court and the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at
Hyderabad, and also in the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, on the same
ground of alleged fraud, the present suit itself is not at all maintainable.
37. The appellant placed a reliance on D.R.Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa7,
wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
“9. Undoubtedly, the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the
second appeal, provided the findings recorded by the courts below are found to be
perverse i.e. not being based on the evidence or contrary to the evidence on record or
reasoning is based on surmises and misreading of the evidence on record or where
the core issue is not decided.”
In the present case at hand, both the Courts below after careful
consideration of the entire evidence on record came to a conclusion that the
appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the declaratory relief as sought for. The
general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings
of the Courts below. But, it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well
recognized exceptions are where:
7
(2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 158
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
1. The Courts below have ignored the material evidence or acted on no
evidence, or
2. The Courts have drawn wrong inferences from a proved fact by
applying the law erroneously, or
3. The Courts have wrongly cast burden of proof.
The present case does not fall within the aforesaid exceptions as stated
supra.
38. The appellant placed a case law in Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros8.
In the aforesaid case law it was held follows:
“20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized
system of jurisprudence.”
The appellant also placed a case law in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh9, wherein the Apex Court observed that “Fraud and
justice never dwell together and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its
temper over all these centuries”. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is
that “dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the
persons who played the fraud or made misrepresentation and in such
circumstances, the Court should not perpetuate the fraud”.
In the case at hand, a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003 is filed by the appellant
herein based on the alleged agreement said to have been executed between
the appellant herein and the auction purchaser, and all the Courts, i.e., from
the trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court, have concurrently held that the said
8
AIR 1992 SCC 1555
9
AIR 2000 SCC 1165
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
alleged Ex.A-1 agreement between the appellant herein and the auction
purchaser is unlawful and it cannot be enforced, and it is a result of an
agreement between the appellant and the auction purchaser, which the
appellant herein intends to knock away the property to the detriment of other
co-sharers. Therefore, the appellant, being a party to the alleged unlawful
agreement, is not entitled to get benefit. It is also a settled principle of law that
“no one is entitled to take advantage of his own wrongs”.
39. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the
issues/points in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff do not brook
interference and that both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit
of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were
based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and
there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the
findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial
question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court
as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly
speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions
of law.
40. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are
substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and
that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal
at the stage of admission.
VGKR, J.
SA_660_2023
41. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission,
confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Date: 24.03.2026
SRT