THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA S.A. No. 749 of 2008 Judgment: This second appeal is directed judgment dated 21.04.2008, passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 92 of 2007, filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 28.12.2006, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, decreeing the suit in O.S. No. 135 of 1999, filed by the respondent for perpetual injunction. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the respondent-plaintiff having failed to prove his possession of the suit schedule property, in the absence of relief of recovery of possession sought by him, is not entitled to grant of permanent injunction, and both the Courts below committed a grave error in granting perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant-defendant. In support of this argument, she placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Sri. Thimmaiah v. Shabira and Ors.[1]. Hence, she prayed that the orders under appeal be set aside and the second appeal be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff submitted that the property purchased by the appellant- defendant is different from the one purchased by the respondent- plaintiff, and as the appellant-defendant tried to interfere with his possession, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction and obtained a decree restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the orders under appeal. Admittedly, the suit schedule property, in respect of which the respondent-plaintiff sought perpetual injunction against the appellant- defendant is Plot No.11, which he claims to have purchased vide Ex. A3-registered document dated 21.04.1999. While the appellant- defendant claims that she is the owner of Plot No.31, on the strength of Ex. A1-GPA, executed by one Venkat Reddy in her favour as also Ex. B1, registered sale deed dated 15.12.1999 executed by her in favour of her minor son. The appellant-defendant contends that the plot, in respect of which, the respondent-plaintiff sought perpetual injunction is Plot No.31 and not Plot No.11. This contention of the appellant-defendant, stands belied by the fact that Ex. A1-General Power of Attorney, executed by one Venkat Reddy in her favour, shows that the GPA of the appellant-defendant is the absolute owner of Plot No.11. Even though the GPA describes the property as Plot No.11, the fact remains, if the said property was not Plot No.11, but Plot No.31, the appellant- defendant should have taken steps to get the mistake rectified, but no evidence was placed by the appellant-defendant, to show that she made any efforts to get the same rectified. Though the appellant-defendant claims that constructions are made in the suit schedule property, the fact remains, the Advocate Commissioner’s report shows that the constructions are made in Plot No.31 and not Plot No.11, in respect of which the respondent-plaintiff, sought perpetual injunction by filing the present suit. Thus, it is clear that the property in respect of which the respondent-plaintiff sought perpetual injunction is different from the property claimed by the appellant-defendant, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the orders under appeal, passed by the Court below granting perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant-defendant, even though the respondent-plaintiff did not seek the relief of recovery of possession. The facts of the case being different, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant on the judgment of the apex Court in Sri. Thimmaiah v. Shabira and Ors. in support of her contention that the respondent- plaintiff having not proved his possession, in the absence of relief of recovery of possession sought by him, he is not entitled for grant of perpetual injunction, would be of no assistance to him. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgments under appeal nor is there any question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting its admission under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: October, 2009. KSR [1] 2008 SAR (Civil) 401 Supreme Court