HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU S.A. No. 1216 of 2009 DATED: 10.02.2010 Between: Kudumula Penchalaiah .. Appellant And Nakkala Polaiah .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009 delivered in A.S. No.218 of 2005 by I Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2005 passed in O.S. No.1394 of 2002 by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff, who filed suit in O.S. No.1394 of 2002 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit, by judgment, dated 19.10.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed A.S. No.218 of 2005, and the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, while holding that the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence on record and erred in dismissing the suit, allowed the appeal, vide his judgment dated 29.06.2009. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.06.2009, the defendant filed the present Second Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has strenuously contended that the appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective and it has gone beyond the scope of the evidence favouring the plaintiff in granting injunction. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. From a perusal of the judgment under appeal, it is clear that the lower appellate Court gave a categorical finding that the trial Court erred in noticing that the defendant expressed no objection to granting injunction against item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties, and so far as item No.4 of the schedule properties is concerned, it is held that the documents filed by the defendant do not at all show his possession over the suit schedule properties, and the plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 – Settlement Deed and claimed possession of the same, and the appellate Court further held that not only Ex.A1 was proved but also the possession of the plaintiff was proved. Once the plaintiff establishes that he got the plaint schedule properties under Ex.A1, the possession follows title. Thus, the plaintiff could prima facie establish that he was in possession of the plaint schedule properties. Hence, I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the appellate Court are perfectly justified and the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction, cannot be sustained. Hence, in the light of the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal, and therefore, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment under appeal nor to admit the Second Appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J. 10th February, 2010. bcj