CHILAKAMARTHI MOHANA RAO Vs. PATIBANDA SOMA SUNDARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) As the only point on which the notice was issued related to the desirability of disposing of the Second Appeal in terms of Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short the Code'] without formulating the substantial question of law by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, it is not necessary to deal with the factual aspects in detail.

(3.) The respondent-Patibanda Soma Sundara Rao filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.12.1981, executed by his father in favour of the appellant-Chilakamarthi Mohana Rao and another sale deed dated 21.12.1981 in favour of the minor son of the appellant and for consequential possession of the properties involved in the said two sale deeds. During the pendency of the suit, the parties had agreed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made an Award (Ex. A2) and submitted the same before the trial court. The appellant took an objection that the Award of the Arbitrator is fraudulent and he had never agreed to the terms and conditions incorporated in the Award. The trial court, while recording the compromise in terms of the said Award, decreed the suit declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant as sham transaction and accordingly cancelled the same. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the trial court, the appellant-defendant No. 1 filed First Appeal before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijaywada. The First Appellate Court, while appreciating the entire evidence, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court. The respondent preferred the Second Appeal No. 650 of 2003 against the judgment of the First Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both the courts below and remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.