THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.746 of 2014 Date:25.11.2014 Between:
Pathivada Ramadas . Appellant.
AND Akella Janaki and others.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.746 of 2014 ORDER:
This appeal is preferred against judgment dated 10-03-2014 in A.S.No.28/2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram whereunder decree and judgment dated 23-02-2012 in O.S.No.83/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this second appeal are as follows: The appellant herein filed the above referred O.S.No.83/2002 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 20-09-2000 executed in favour of respondents 1 & 2 herein on the ground of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation etc. On consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 & A7 on plaintiff side, D.Ws.1 to 3 & Exs.B1 to B8 on defendant side, trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred appeal to the District Judge, Vizianagaram and the learned appellate Judge, on a reappraisal of oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Now aggrieved by the same, present second appeal is preferred.
3. Heard Advocate for appellant.
4. It is submitted that the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no proper pleading in the plaint about coercion, but the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that due to threat of the defendants 1 & 2 of filing suits against him on the basis of blank promissory note in their possession, plaintiff was forced to execute a registered sale deed, therefore, when there is a specific pleading, observing that there is no proper pleading is a question of law that has to be decided by this Court. It is also submitted that with regard to Ex.A1-receipt, there is no proper appreciation and on these two grounds, the second appeal has to be admitted.
5. I have perused the judgments of both trial and appellate Court and also the grounds urged in the second appeal. Most of the grounds urged are in respect of facts considered by the trial Court and appellate Court.
6. As seen from the material, there is absolutely no question of law involved in this case leave alone substantial question of law. All the points urged are only in respect of facts which were already decided by two Courts while appreciating evidence of both sides.
7. Considering the material on record, I am of the view that there is no substantial question of law involved requiring consideration of this Court. Hence, second appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. Accordingly, Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits at admission stage. No costs
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:25.11.2014 mrb