THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Second Appeal No.657 of 1996 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff, who has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant herein. In this appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, he inter alia seeks to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree, dated 25.09.1996, passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree, 01.05.1990, passed by the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle in O.S.No.588 of 1980 decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Heard both sides. The case of the appellant in brief is that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property all along consequent to the registered sale deed, dated 25.04.1979, which was marked as Ex.A1 and since the respondents-defendants are interfering with his possession, he filed the suit for injunction. The respondents contested the suit denying the allegations made by the appellant, including possession. The trial Court after considering the material on record brought on record by both the sides, decreed the suit. However, in appeal by the respondents- defendants, the lower appellate Court once again has gone into the material on record and made categorical findings to the effect that except oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, no evidence was forthcoming to show the possession of the appellant and even cist receipts are subsequent to the filing of the suit and therefore, they cannot be relied on. It is also held that even Ex.A7, Adangal, does not prove the contention of the appellant and therefore, the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and set aside the same. Hence, the present second appeal. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, it transpires that apart from title, the appellant claims possession of the suit schedule property under Ex.A1, registered sale deed, dated 25.04.1979. But, however, he failed to prove his possession before the lower appellate Court, which is purely a finding fact. In a suit for injunction simplicitor, the issue with regard to title cannot be gone into, unless appropriate relief is sought for. In the circumstances, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file a separate comprehensive suit, if so advised, which shall be considered on merits independently uninfluenced by any of the observations made in these proceedings. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Dt.29.07.2010 VGB