The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms that interference in second appeal under Section 100 CPC is strictly limited to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper evaluation of evidence cannot be disturbed unless exceptions apply. This decision upholds established Supreme Court precedent, confirming its binding authority for future civil litigation involving second appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/176/2024 of KURICHETI KANNAMMA Vs INDURU VENKATESWARULU |
| CNR | APHC010076452024 |
| Date of Registration | 14-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal under Section 100 CPC is strictly confined to cases involving substantial questions of law. It cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless the findings are:
The burden of proof in declaratory suits remains with the plaintiff regardless of the weakness of the defendant’s case. Where documentary and oral evidence has been duly considered and there is no substantive legal error, interference is not warranted. The present case involves no such substantial question, and the concurrent findings decreeing the plaintiff’s title stand affirmed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Section 100 CPC permits interference only on substantial questions of law clearly set forth and formulated at admission; High Court cannot substitute its view in place of concurrent findings unless exceptions like ignorance of material evidence, wrong inference of facts, or misapplication of law apply. Quality of evidence, not quantity, is emphasized per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. Earlier registration (Section 47 Registration Act, Section 48 TPA) prevails if the sale deeds are by the same person; material alteration in documents without due attestation vitiates their effect. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiffs’ son purchased Plot No.454 from Vasudha Real Estate in 2003 and died unmarried; plaintiffs claimed succession. Defendants 3 and 4, real estate developers, entered into joint layout and later allegedly sold the same plot (in parts) to others in 2004 and 2010. Trial court decreed title and possession to the plaintiffs. First appellate court confirmed this. High Court considered whether second appeal lies on any substantial question of law, especially regarding sufficiency and evaluation of evidence and material alterations in title documents. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court in interpreting limits of Section 100 CPC |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates strict limits on High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals: unless there’s a substantial question of law, findings of lower courts cannot be disturbed.
- Clarifies that proof of title in civil suits rests with the plaintiff and cannot be shifted to defendant by virtue of defendant’s weak case.
- Emphasizes the sufficiency of a single witness if supported by reliable documentary evidence; quality over quantity applies per Evidence Act.
- Affirms that alterations/interlineations in registered sale deeds must comply with statutory requirements; material alterations can render sale deeds invalid.
- Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act applies only when there are rival transfers from the same vendor.
- Where parties admit material facts on record, non-examination or ex parte status of some defendants does not affect the outcome if documentary evidence is clear.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellate court set out that in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to questions of law that are substantial and specifically formulated at the time of admission, in line with Supreme Court precedent.
- The court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact, based on due appreciation of evidence, cannot be disturbed unless (i) the courts below ignored material evidence, (ii) made findings on no evidence, or (iii) wrongly applied the law.
- On the merits, the court closely considered registered sale deeds, oral and documentary evidence, and parties’ admissions. It found the plaintiffs’ title to be established through a prior sale deed; later deeds suffered from material interlineation and lack of valid execution, especially when joint vendors sold separately.
- The case distinguished between situations where Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act applies (competing transfers by same vendor) and when it does not (different vendors). Here, the plaintiffs’ title was clear as per the documentary record.
- The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff in declaratory suits; the weakness of the defence is not enough to confer relief on the plaintiff. Only the quality—not number—of witnesses is material.
- Non-examination of the 2nd defendant was not fatal, since his ex parte status meant he did not dispute the registered sale; in light of the evidence and admissions, substantial questions of law did not arise.
- Consequently, the High Court declined to disturb the concurrent findings and dismissed the second appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants / Defendants 1, 3–5)
- Plaintiffs failed to establish clear title to the suit schedule property.
- Burden of proof in declaratory suits remains strictly with plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs relied only on oral evidence of one witness; no independent corroboration produced.
- Material alterations in plaintiffs’ documentary title; Section 48 of T.P. Act could not apply as sellers were different individuals.
- Sale deed (Ex.A.8) cannot be relied upon without examination of persons with first-hand knowledge.
- Non-examination of the 2nd defendant was fatal.
Respondent (Plaintiffs)
- Plaintiffs produced valid, prior, registered title deed showing purchase of entire plot from the developer through its Managing Partner.
- Defendants’ attempt to convey portions through subsequent sale deeds with interlineations and corrections was invalid, as corroborated by documentary and oral admissions.
- Law does not insist on quantity of witnesses; the documentary record and admissions suffice.
- Defendants’ own evidence supported the plaintiffs’ version on material aspects.
Factual Background
The dispute revolved around title to Plot No.454 of a residential layout at Ambapuram village. Plaintiffs’ son purchased the plot in 2003 through a registered sale deed from Vasudha Real Estate, represented by its Managing Partner, and later died intestate leaving the plaintiffs as successors. Defendants 3 and 4, originally part of the venture, separately sold parts of the same plot to Defendant 1 (2004) and Defendant 5 (2010), with related Power of Attorney executed. Plaintiffs claimed declaration of title, cancellation of subsequent sale deeds, mandatory injunction, and recovery of possession. Both the trial court and first appellate court decreed in plaintiffs’ favour; the second appeal challenged whether the High Court could interfere with those findings in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100 CPC: Limits High Court’s interference on second appeal to cases involving substantial questions of law, to be clearly set out and formulated.
- Section 134, Indian Evidence Act: Emphasizes that no particular number of witnesses is required and quality of evidence prevails.
- Section 47, Registration Act: Registered document takes effect from execution, not registration.
- Section 20, Registration Act: Interlineation or alteration in a document without attestation by executants can lead to registration being refused or document being invalid.
- Section 48, Transfer of Property Act: Priority among successive transfers by the same person; not applicable where transfers are by different vendors.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed