THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO.959 OF 2009 23rd September 2009 Between: Obulampalli Subbareddy, 47 years, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Samudrampalli Village, Kamalpuram Mandal. …APPELLANT AND 1. Obulampalli Sesha Reddy, 82 years, S/o.Subbireddy, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Samudrampalli Village, Kamalapuram Mandal. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO.959 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff in O.S.No.150 of 1985 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Kamalapuram, is the appellant. He filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction and declaration of title over the land in Survey No.613/2 of Samudrapalli Village of Kadapa district. He pleaded that the property has fallen to his share from his ancestors in a compromise decree in O.S.No.97 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif, Kadapa. The manner of enjoyment of properties by the parties herein was also mentioned. The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the suit by stating that the suit land has never fallen to the share of the ancestors of the appellant. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 06.06.1990. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed A.S.No.22 of 1990 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur. The first appeal was dismissed on 26.11.1996. Hence, this Second Appeal. Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the land has fallen to the share of the ancestors of the appellant in terms of the compromise decree, way back in the year 1939 and the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence from the correct perspective. He submits that the respondents did not deny the possession over the land and still, the suit was dismissed in its entirety. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit lands? 2. Whether the 2nd defendant has got title to an extent of Ac.0.93 cents in Survey No.613/2 under the registered sale deed dated 21.04.1969 as alleged by him? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff has put up a filter point when the injunction order in O.S.No.149/85 is in force? 5. Whether the defendants 1 and 3 are necessary parties to the suit? 6. To what relief? To prove his case, the appellant adduced oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was filed. The trial Court undertook discussion mainly upon issue No.1 and answered it against the appellant. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. The sole basis for the appellant for his claim is the decree passed in O.S.No.97 of 1938, which is marked as Ex.A1. From a perusal of this, it is clear that none of the ancestors of the appellant were arrayed as parties to it. The record discloses that the grand father of the appellant died long prior to the institution of O.S.No.97 of 1938 and the father of the appellant was not made a party. Though a contention was raised to the effect that the family of the appellant was represented by his senior paternal grand father, there is no mention that any one figured in the suit in his representative capacity. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have discussed the evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusions. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Second Appeal {SR} is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 23rd September 2009 RRB