Appellant court can not reverse or modify the lower court decree and judgement in the absence of appeal /cross appeal /cross objections on that count - In the absence of any such appeal, the lower appellate Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the decree of the trial Court with regard to the award of damages. Therefore, the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court that the appellant is not entitled to damages as he has not supplied the remaining ballast to the respondents and reversal of the judgment and decree regarding damages cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the judgment to this extent is set aside. In the result, the decree of the trial Court awarding damages of Rs.1.00 lakh is restored. The sum of Rs.1,92,473/- along with 6% interest, in respect of which a further decree has been passed by the lower appellate Court, shall be paid by the respondents in addition to the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh payable by them towards the damages awarded by the trial Court. The judgment of the lower appellate Court accordingly stands modified to the above extent.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

Second Appeal No. 92 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013

Between:

C.H. Nagi Reddy                                                
... Appellant

And

Union of India, Owning South Central
Railway, rep.by its General Manager,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & another.         
... Respondents



Counsel for the appellant:  Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad

Counsel for the respondents:  Sri P.Bhaskar


The Court made the following:












JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 17.07.2009, in A.S.No.84 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty. 
The appellant filed O.S.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty 
for declaration that the termination of the contract through letter, dated 27.01.2000, by the respondents is illegal; 
for mandatory injunction directing the respondents not to penalize him; to restore the benefits of the contract; 
for award of damages of Rs.3.00 lakhs and 
for return of the sum of Rs.1,92,473/- along with interest towards the work done by him.
After a full-fledged trial, 
the trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of payment of damages of Rs.1.00 lakh and dismissed the suit for the remaining reliefs.  
Feeling partly aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant filed A.S.No.84 of 2007 in the lower appellate Court.  
By its judgment, dated 17.07.2009, 
the lower appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal holding that the appellant is entitled to recovery of Rs.1,92,473/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization towards the work done by the appellant.  
However, while doing so, the lower appellate Court had held that the appellant is not entitled to award of damages and directed that the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh already awarded by the trial Court towards damages shall be adjusted towards the sum of Rs.1,92,473/- and that the appellant is entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs.92,473/- with interest at 6% per annum.
At the hearing, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the lower appellate Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court with respect to award of damages as no appeal was filed by the respondents against that part of the decree of the trial Court. 
Sri P.Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents, is unable to show that the respondents have filed any appeal either substantive or by way of cross-objections against the judgment and decree of the trial Court awarding damages to the appellant. 
In the absence of any such appeal, the lower appellate Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the decree of the trial Court with regard to the award of damages.  Therefore, the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court that the appellant is not entitled to damages as he has not supplied the remaining ballast to the respondents and reversal of the judgment and decree regarding damages cannot be sustained in law.  Accordingly, the judgment to this extent is set aside.
In the result, the decree of the trial Court awarding damages of Rs.1.00 lakh is restored.  
The sum of Rs.1,92,473/- along with 6% interest, in respect of which a further decree has been passed by the lower appellate Court, shall be paid by the respondents in addition to the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh payable by them towards the damages awarded by the trial Court. 
 The judgment of the lower appellate Court accordingly stands modified to the above extent.  
The Second Appeal is allowed accordingly.

 

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

21st February, 2013.
Mgr/VGB
                                                                             

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.