NUNE PRASAD Vs. NUNE RAMAKRISNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC).

(3.) Factual background in a nutshell is as follows : The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No.78 of 1990 before the Sub-Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh against the respon dent-defendant. The Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 27.06.1995 held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property and they being the owners of the schedule property are entitled to possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial court, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. By judgment and order dated 14.06.2001, the first appellate court confirmed the Trial Courts judgment. The respondent-defendant preferred a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, being Second Ap peal No.512 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the second appeal and the judgments and decree passed by the courts below were set aside. Though many points have been urged in Supplort of the appeal, the primary stand of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the second appeal was allowed with out framing any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the High Courts judg ment does not show that any substantial question of law was framed yet learned Single Judge has allowed the appeal after analyzing the factual position in the back ground of settled principles in law.