THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1171 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The second appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.52 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasam. The suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of two bits of land, namely Acs.2.84 cents in Survey No.146 and Ac.1.00 in Survey No.147 of Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and appellant No.2 herein was brought on record. It was pleaded that on an earlier occasion, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.55 of 1977 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.5.19 cents of land in Survey No.146 against deceased respondent No.1 and that though the relief of declaration of title was granted in respect of Acs.2.84 cents of land, the one for perpetual injunction was denied in respect of the entire land. He further pleaded that the revenue authorities granted patta in respect of Acs.2.84 cents of land on 14.11.1990 and that the possession was delivered with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A9. The deceased respondent No.1 filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that the suit schedule property was assigned to him 30 years ago and that appellant No.1 has no right whatever over the property. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 13.09.2006. The respondents filed A.S.No.50 of 2008 in the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was allowed on 30.08.2011 reversing the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. The suit filed by appellant No.1 was the one for injunction simplicitor. The claim was made based upon an assignment said to have been made by the Government. The earlier litigation between the parties was hardly of any relevance. The trial Court framed the following issue and additional issue for its consideration: Issue: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? Additional Issue: (i) Whether the plan filed by the defendant is true and correct? It appears that the sole plaintiff was not in a position to depose and on his behalf, P.Ws.1 to 5 were figured as witnesses and Exs.A1 to A15 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were filed. The decree for perpetual injunction passed by the trial Court was reversed by the lower appellate Court. The appellants on the one hand and the respondents on the other put forward their claims vis-à-vis the suit schedule property on the basis of their respective assignments said to have been made by the Government. None of them got the property either through sale or through succession. Since both the parties are claiming rights under assignments, the authority concerned can examine as to whether both the assignments are in respect of the same bit of land . If it emerges that the assignments are in respect of different pieces of land, the demarcation can also be undertaken by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act and the Rules made thereunder. Though the trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the evidence before it, the lower appellate Court has referred to certain admissions made on behalf of the appellants. There is any amount of uncertainty as to the nature of possession over the suit schedule property. The litigation is pending for the past several decades. Even now, appellant No.2 can approach the revenue authorities and if it emerges that there is a valid assignment in favour of her predecessor, steps for demarcation or induction into possession can be taken. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. However, it is left open to appellant No.2 to approach the revenue authorities for demarcation of the land and consequential steps. The judgments rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court shall not be treated as final on the question of possession and it shall be open to the revenue authorities to deal with the matter independently. With the above observations, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 02.11.2011. kdl