CPC, 1908—Section 100—Second Appeal—Scope of Interference—Execution Against Partnership Firm—Liability of Partners—Order 21 Rule 50(2)—Maintainability of Successive Execution Petitions—Order 41 Rule 27—Additional Evidence. Held: In second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to mandatory statutory provisions, or opposed to binding precedent; interference is confined strictly to substantial questions of law—A decree against a partnership firm operates as a decree against all partners—Under Order 21 Rule 50(2) CPC, execution may proceed against a person alleged to be a partner even if not individually impleaded or served, unless they prove non-partnership or fraud/collusi...

Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955—Ss. 452(1), 461(1)—Unauthorized Construction—Deviations—Compounding/Regularization—GOMs.No.119 (AP Building Rules, 2017)—GOMs.No.225 (12.11.2025)—Writ Jurisdiction—Neighbor Complaints—Mixed Use Buildings—Held: Where deviations from a sanctioned building plan are alleged, the competent municipal authority must first ascertain the extent and nature of such deviations—If deviations are minor (less than 10% of built-up area) and fall within the scope of GOMs.No.119 or GOMs.No.225, the builder is entitled to seek compounding or regularization on payment of penal charges; demolition cannot be ordered without such determination—A writ petition by a neighboring owner seeking demolition or cancellation of building permission is n...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 47 Rule 1—Review—Scope and Limits—Error Apparent / Sufficient Reason—Review lies only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for any sufficient reason analogous to the statutory grounds—It cannot operate as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be invoked to re-argue or re-open issues already adjudicated—The error must be self-evident, not one requiring elaborate reasoning or re-appreciation of evidence. (Paras 22, 24, 25, 27, 30) Review—Non-consideration of Material Issues—Error Apparent—Where a vital contention, although raised and noticed in the judgment, remains unaddressed and undecided, and the issue is germane to the decision, such omission amounts to an error apparent or constitutes “sufficient reason” warr...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 96, Order 21 Rule 34—Appealability of Findings—Permanent Injunction—Title Dispute—Execution of Specific Performance Decree—In a suit for permanent injunction involving a vacant site, the court must incidentally examine title, since possession follows title in such cases—An appeal lies only against a decree, not against mere findings, unless a finding operates as res judicata or the decree adversely affects the party—Defendants impleaded in the injunction suit, having failed to establish possession or any substantial right, were not aggrieved by the decree and their appeal (A.S. No. 372/2009) was rightly dismissed. (Paras 23, 24, 49, 73, 74, 83, 85) Hindu Women’s Property Rights—Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937—Section 14...

Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 8—Operation of Transfer—Implicit inclusion of appurtenant structures—A transfer of a building carries with it all legal incidents and appurtenances necessary for its enjoyment unless a contrary intention is expressed or necessarily implied—Under Section 8, even where a sale deed for the first floor (“Meda Bhavanthi”) does not specifically refer to the balcony/covered varanda, if evidence establishes that the balcony is a continuous structural component of the main building—formed by the continuation of the ground-floor slab and accessible only through doorways from the sold first-floor portion—it is deemed an integral part of the transferred property—The balcony cannot be treated as a separate or retained portion of the property, and the ven...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Second Appeal—Jurisdiction—Section 80 CPC—Land Acquisition—Evidence—In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is permissible only when a substantial question of law arises—Where the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the suit land was never acquired by the Government—as reflected from the defective delivery report lacking the vendor’s signature (Ex.B.4), the admission of D.W.1 acknowledging that the vendor’s land stood exempted by High Court order, and the existence of a kattava (physical boundary separation)—the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted by any alleged acquisition proceedings, and the plaintiff’s title and possession stand affirmed. (Paras 15, 17–19, 21, 22, 23) A suit instituted against ...

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987—Nature and Classification of Ashramam/Jeeva Samadhi—Public vs Private Institution—Specific Endowment—Procedural Safeguards for Enlistment—Determination of character of institution—Whether an Ashramam built over a Jeeva Samadhi constitutes a “religious institution” or “temple” under Sections 2(23) and 2(27) of the 1987 Act depends principally on whether it is of public or private character—The decisive test is the nature of management and control—if control is retained within the founder’s family and the public’s right of entry is restricted or permissive rather than as a matter of right, the institution is not a public religious institution. (Paras 10, 13–18) Where...

Civil Procedure—Commercial Suits—Filing of Written Statement and Additional Written Statement—Mandatory Timelines—Forfeiture of Right—A suit arising from a commercial transaction, once transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is governed by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the Act, and the stricter procedural regime prescribed therein applies. (Paras 9, 10) Under Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 (as amended for commercial disputes), the defendant must file the written statement within a maximum outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, failing which the right to file the written statement stands forfeited and the Court has no jurisdiction to take it on record—This mandate cannot be overcome by invoking inhe...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 47—Execution—Determination of Rights of Objector—Scope of Civil Revision—Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227—Cultivating Tenancy and Pre-emption—Where the Supreme Court modified the decree by clarifying that the decree-holder could not proceed against the rights of Defendant 2, but granted Defendant 2 liberty to approach the Executing Court for determination of his rights, the objection filed by Defendant 2 under Section 47 CPC was rightly adjudicated by the Executing Court—In a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order passed in such E.A., the Revisional Court’s jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the specific order passed in the execution application and does not extend to reopening the merits ...

**Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib)—Divorce—Cruelty (Mental and Physical)—Desertion—Scope and standards of proof—Cruelty, whether mental or physical, is not capable of precise definition and must be assessed in the context of the parties’ social background, lifestyle, customs and circumstances—Conduct justifying separation must be grave and weighty, demonstrating a practical impossibility of continuing marital obligations—Acts that seriously wound mental feelings or cause deep emotional distress may amount to cruelty even in the absence of physical harm; whereas mere temperamental differences, rudeness or lack of courtesy do not constitute legal cruelty—A sustained course of conduct causing mental agony, anguish or torture amounts to mental cruelty, and court...