THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 989 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal ﬁled against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2010, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 85 of 2009, ﬁled by the appellant questioning the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, decreeing the suit O.S. No. 1161 of 2002, ﬁled by the respondent for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal. Though the appellant-defendant claimed that the respondent-plaintiﬀ was claiming his property, the fact remains, the appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the appellant- defendant and the respondent-plaintiﬀ, found that the defendant himself as D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted the property claimed by him in the written statement is diﬀerent from that of the plaint schedule property. That Exs. A6 and A22-sale deeds ﬁled by the respondent-plaintiﬀ, show that the land claimed by the appellant-defendant, is to the east side of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.00 purchased by one Gopala Naidu, while the land purchased by the respondent-plaintiﬀ is within the said Acs.2.00, which is evident from Exs. A1 to A6. Though the appellant-defendant sought to trace his title through Leela Kumari and contended that ryotwari patta was granted in her favour by the Inam Tahsildar, the fact remains, both the Courts below, as evidenced by Ex. A28, found that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of Leela Kumari, from whom the appellant-defendant claims title, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, for de novo enquiry. Thus the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below, based on Ex. A1-registered sale deed dated 31.12.1986, which is supported by other documentary evidence, namely Exs. A2 to A22-sale deeds, and endorsement and proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Tirupati, which are marked as Exs. A26 and A28 and the oral evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6, who are the neighbouring owners of the respondent-plaintiﬀ, concurrently found and held that the respondent-plaintiﬀ established that he had purchased the suit schedule property and traced his title thereto. That the respondent, being the owner of the suit schedule property, made constructions therein to protect it, and since he proved his title to the suit schedule property, he is entitled to grant of declaration and injunction as prayed for. The ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, this Court ﬁnds no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. This apart, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting its admission or interference by this Court with the judgment under appeal, in exercise of its power under Section 100 C.P.C. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 25th November, 2011. IBL