THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.86 OF 2011 20.10.2011 Between: Jeeri Narappa …Appellant AND Jeeri Sathibabu …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.86 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This is defendant’s second appeal against reversing Judgment of the first appellate Court. The respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) instituted O.S.No.192 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein (hereafter, the defendant) from interfering with the suit schedule property being a residential portion in Kakinada Municipality. He alleged that there was a partition among the father of the plaintiff, defendants and others; in the said oral partition, plaint schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff’s father who was in possession; after his death, the plaintiff is in continuing possession and the defendant is trying to trespass into the schedule property. The defendant opposed the suit contending that his father purchased the property under a registered document dated 06.12.1932; that plaintiff is permitted to reside in one room of plaint schedule property as licensee and in spite of repeated requests, plaintiff has refused to vacate the same and that the suit filed for injunction is misconceived. During the trial, the plaintiff deposed as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1, a bunch of tax receipts. The defendant was lone witness as D.W.1, who also marked Exs.B.1 to B.10. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove oral partition. The appellate Court reversed the trial Court and allowed A.S.No.176 of 2009 on 04.08.2010. The counsel for appellant would contend that when the plaintiff failed to prove oral partition or relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the first appellate court ought to have disbelieved the version of the plaintiff. This submission is misconceived. As rightly observed by the first appellate Court, the suit being permanent injunction, the trial Court committed an error in going into the title of the suit property. In a suit for permanent injunction, the relevant issue is as to who is in possession and who will suffer legal injury if interference is not injuncted. The first appellate Court has also found that the defendant as D.W.1 admitted in his evidence that all municipal tax receipts are in the name of the father of the plaintiff and that they were alone in possession of the property. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court is based on the evidence and is well supported by convincing reasons. The second appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20.10.2011 Pln