Bathula Jaya Ramulu vs B.V.R.Parthasarathi - Order(1) - Unknown Date

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI

SI.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER
08.	27.11.2023	Dr. KMR,J
		<b>I.A.No.1 of 2023</b>
		This application is filed to condone
		the delay of 104 days in representing the
		appeal.
		Heard.
		Considering the submissions and for
		the reasons stated in the accompanying
		affidavit filed in support of this application,
		the delay of 104 days in representing the
		appeal is condoned.
		Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is
		ordered.
		Dr. KMR,J

		S.A.No.445 of 2022
		Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned
		counsel for the Appellant.
		Considering<br>the<br>submissions<br>$\mathsf{of}$
		learned counsel for the appellant, the
		following substantial questions of law arise
		for consideration in the Second Appeal:
		1) Whether the Judgment of the<br>first appellate Court is vitiated<br>as the first appellate Court<br>failed to adhere to the<br>provisions of O 41 R 31 C.P.C

	which have been reiterated to

	be<br>mandatory<br>by<br>Honble
	Supreme Court of India in the
	case<br>of<br>H.Siddiqui<br>Vs

	A.Ramalingam<br>reported<br>in
	(2011) 4 SCC 240.

2)	Whether<br>the<br>first<br>appellate
	Court is right in allowing the
	first appeal by coming to a

	unreasonable conclusion that
	the Ex.A4 is a fraudulent sale

	deed<br>merely<br>because<br>the
	appellant herein is a minor and
	he has no capacity to purchase

	the land, even though DW.2
	admitted<br>that<br>she<br>paid

	consideration on behalf of the
	appellant herein.
3)	Whether the Judgment of first

	appellate Court is vitiated on
	the<br>premise<br>that,<br>it<br>didn't
	construct the premise in the

	premise of Section 8 of Hindu
	Succession<br>Act?

4)	Whether<br>the<br>first<br>appellate
	Court<br>vitiated<br>in<br>not
	considering<br>the<br>settled

	proposition of law that once
	the<br>partition<br>is<br>affected


	through<br>the<br>registered
	document, yet again one of

	the<br>parties<br>cannot<br>seek
	partition and the judgment of
	first appellate Court is marred

	for not at all contemplating
	upon<br>Ex.A3<br>which<br>is<br>a

	registered<br>partition<br>suit
	between the plaintiff in the
	Original Suit and the D1?

5)	Whether<br>the<br>first<br>appellate
	Court<br>is<br>vitiated<br>in<br>not
	questioning the maintainability

	of the prayer sought by the
	respondent herein who filed

	the<br>original<br>suit<br>for
	cancellation of Registered sale<br>deed,<br>Ex.A4<br>and<br>the<br>first

appellate Court did not ponder<br>on the aspect that, when the<br>plaintiffs are ot signatories to<br>the<br>document<br>they<br>cannot<br>seek cancellation but approach<br>the remedy by way of suit for<br>declaration?<br>6)<br>Whether the judgment of the<br>first appellate Court is vitiated<br>on the premise that, it didn't<br>cogitate on the aspect that,<br>the D1 executed the sale deed<br>in the favour of the appellant<br>herein on 04.03.2006 and the<br>same registered sale deed has<br>been marked as Ex.A4 and<br>since then the appellant herein<br>is in the peaceful possession of<br>the subject properties, but the<br>respondents/appellants/plain
tiffs in the nerve questioned<br>the genuineness of the title of<br>appellant<br>herein<br>until<br>2012<br>with a malfide intention?
ADMIT.
Notice.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal notice to the
respondents by RPAD and file proof<br>of
service in the Registry.
Post the matter on 26.12.2023.
________
Dr.<br>KMR,J
I.A.No.2<br>OF 2023
Heard<br>Ms.Ayesha<br>Azma,<br>learned
counsel for the Appellant.
In view of the submissions, there<br>shall<br>be<br>interim<br>stay<br>of<br>all<br>further