Mere Re-Appreciation of Evidence Is Not Permissible in a Second Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in its judgment dated February 4, 2025, in Vudumala Radha & Others v. Narusupalli Venkata Appala Ravi Kumar, Second Appeal No. 450 of 2022, dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court, which had decreed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession based on a registered sale deed.

Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, delivering the judgment, observed: "The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, contrary to law, or based on inadmissible evidence. Mere re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in a second appeal."

The case originated when the plaintiff filed a suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning Ac.3-90 cents of land situated in Rangarayapuram Revenue area. The plaintiff relied on a registered sale deed dated August 16, 2010, executed by the first defendant, who had originally purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated May 10, 2005. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid the full sale consideration of ₹6,63,000, was put in possession of the land, and had applied for mutation in the revenue records.

The first defendant, however, denied having executed a sale deed and contended that the transaction was merely a mortgage. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained a sale deed instead of a mortgage deed.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he had validly acquired title under Ex.A.2 registered sale deed, that he had established his ownership, and that the defendants had no legal claim over the property. The court decreed recovery of possession, directing the defendants to vacate the property.

The first appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, confirming that the plaintiff had lawfully purchased the property and was entitled to possession. The defendants then approached the High Court in second appeal.

Limited Scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC

The High Court emphasized the limited scope of interference in second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on settled legal principles, the Court held: "Under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact unless they are contrary to settled legal principles or based on inadmissible evidence. A second appeal cannot be used to merely reassess evidence or substitute factual conclusions."

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh (1992) 3 SCC 235, the Court observed: "The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature."

Similarly, in Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722, the Supreme Court had ruled: "The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or were based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence."

Applying these principles, the High Court found no substantial question of law to justify interference in the present case.

Registered Sale Deed as Proof of Title: Plaintiff’s Case Upheld The High Court upheld the validity of the plaintiff’s title on the basis of the registered sale deed dated August 16, 2010 (Ex.A.2). The Court noted that: "Execution of the sale deed was not denied by the first defendant. The first defendant admitted receiving the full sale consideration. The first defendant’s husband was an attesting witness to the sale deed. No legal notice was issued by the first defendant alleging fraud, and no suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed."

The Court emphasized that "a registered sale deed is the best proof of ownership unless validly challenged", and held that the plaintiff successfully established his title and entitlement to possession.

Defendant’s Admission Strengthened Plaintiff’s Case

The High Court noted that the first defendant admitted in cross-examination that the signature on Ex.A.2 sale deed belonged to her and that her husband, the first attestor, was fully aware of the transaction. The Court further noted:

"The first defendant’s husband, being an educated person, was well aware of the transaction. No steps were taken to challenge the sale deed or claim it was obtained fraudulently. The first defendant’s admission supports the plaintiff’s case and weakens her own defense."

The Court concluded that the contentions of the defendants were legally untenable, as they had failed to challenge the sale deed or produce any evidence of a mortgage transaction.

Alternative Relief of Possession: Procedural Objections Rejected

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had originally sought only a declaration and injunction and that the grant of recovery of possession was procedurally improper. The High Court rejected this contention, holding:

"Rules of procedure are meant to aid the administration of justice. A party cannot be denied relief merely due to a procedural technicality."

The Court noted that the trial court had directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee, and after compliance, recovery of possession was rightly granted.

Dismissing the second appeal, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court. The Court directed the defendants to vacate the property within three months, failing which the plaintiff could initiate execution proceedings.

The judgment reinforces the principle that registered title documents carry strong evidentiary value, and courts will not entertain frivolous challenges to valid transactions.

Justice Gopala Krishna Rao concluded: "The plaintiff has successfully proved his title through a valid registered sale deed. The defendants, having failed to challenge the sale deed or prove their mortgage claim, cannot now defeat the plaintiff’s rightful claim. The findings of the lower courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference."

Thus, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, directing the defendants to vacate the premises within three months.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2025