THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.727 of 2010 Date of Order: 13-08-2010 Between: Tamarana Satyavathi ..Petitioner and Bandaru Kantham and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.727 of 2010 Oral Judgment: The plaintiff in the Court below filed this Second Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram passed in A.S.No.22 of 2006, dated 02-03-2010, wherein the learned Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant and dismissed the suit—O.S.No.199 of 2000 of the plaintiff, which was decreed by the trial Court on 25-08-2006. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule vacant site stating that after allotment of house site pattas and construction of houses, the land owners occupied the adjacent vacant sites. Like wise, the plaintiff occupied the vacant site on the eastern side of her husband’s house and the 2nd defendant occupied the vacant site on the eastern side of the house of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant after occupying the vacant house site constructed compound wall around the house and vacant site; the plaintiff did not construct the compound wall around the house and vacant site, but planted five coconut trees in the plaint schedule vacant site. The revenue people also issued Land Possession Certificate on 05-02-1998 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants without having any right, title or possession over the plaint schedule vacant site tried to occupy the same with the help of local police and to construct the compound wall and also poured kerosene on the three coconut trees lying in the plaint schedule vacant site; they also got pressure on the police to foist a case against the plaintiff to restrain her permanently. To which the 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 2nd defendant, traversing the plaint allegations and stated that the revenue officials issued Land Possession Certificate to the 2nd defendant on 27-11-1991 for the plaint schedule property and after that the 1st defendant planted five coconut trees which are aged about 6 and 7 years and the 1st defendant is in enjoyment of the same. While so, the plaintiff with a view to grab the plaint schedule property subsequently obtained another certificate by misrepresenting the fact and misleading the authorities and when the plaintiff tried to encroach the property by force, the defendants filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni, who in turn addressed a letter dated 02-07-1999 to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Tuni to enquire into the Land Possession Certificates of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The M.R.O., Tuni after due enquiry cancelled both the certificates issued to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and the 2nd defendant by order dated 27- 07-1999 and also observed that the plaint schedule vacant site is covered with coconut trees which are in possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. To prove her case, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 apart from three more witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were got marked. The learned trial court after considering ExA5, where two cents of land situated in front of houses of both the plaintiff and the defendants was allotted to the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants never cross- examined about Ex.A5 and D.W.1 in her evidence nowhere denied Ex.A5. She (D.W.1) clearly admitted that patta was granted to the plaintiff in the disputed land, which is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule vacant site; when there is no cancellation of Land Possession Certificate by M.R.O. with regard to disputed site, which is alleged to be in possession of the plaintiff, and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 also supports that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule vacant site and accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence concluded that plaintiff, who examined as P.W.1, in her cross- examination categorically admitted that she constructed a house on the land given by the M.R.O. and patta was given in the name of Suryanarayana Raju; she filed the document that she is living in the name of Suryanarayana prior to issuance of patta in favour of her husband, but in the chief affidavit she clearly mentioned that her Land Possession Certificate was cancelled. Once Ex.A1—Land Possession Certificate issued by the M.R.O. is cancelled, there is no legal sanctity for the same. P.W.2 also in the cross-examination admitted that he do not know whether the patta granted to the plaintiff was cancelled, but he knows that patta issued in the name of the 2nd defendant was cancelled by the MRO, Tuni by order dated 21-07-1999. The 1st defendant also gave a report to the SHO, Tuni Rural Police Station, stating that the plaintiff is interfering with his possession; basing on the said report the M.R.O. cancelled the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff. The MRO observed that the schedule property was not in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff herself admitted that patta granted in her favour has been cancelled, the presumption “title follows possession” cannot be true. When the 2nd defendant is in possession of the property and the 1st defendant raised 5 coconut trees aged about 6 or 7 years and when the M.R.O. cancelled Land Possession Certificates issued to the plaintiff as well as the 2nd defendant through its order dated 21-07-1999, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession of the property is erroneous. Holding so, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 25-08-2006 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.199 of 2000. The findings so recorded by the lower appellate court are based on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be interfered. No perversity is discernable to the judgment passed by the lower appellate court, which give rise to a question of law, much less substantial question of law, to be decided in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 13-08-2010 Murthy/KH