HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No. 1111 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 8.9.2009 passed in A.S.No. 295 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Guntur confirming the decree and judgment dated 23.7.2007 in O.S.No. 131 of 1998 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 131 of 1998. He filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 16.4.1993 executed by the mother of the defendants in the Suit by name Tarigoppula Davanamma in favour of the plaintiff. That suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, appellant herein filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the appellate Court stating that the trial Court taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances refused to grant relief of specific performance which is a discretionary relief. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Therefore, in my opinion the trial court has considered the matter objectively and dismissed the suit and the same was also confirmed by the appellate court. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 24.12.2010 KA