IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 4 OF 2007 Between: Vallabhaneni Bhaskara Rao … Appellant-Defendant V/s. Smt. Veeramachaneni Baby Sarojini Respondent-plaintiff & Anr. … second appellant- Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Mowwa Chandrasekhara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kowuturu Vinaya Kumar The Court made the following judgment (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 4 OF 2007 JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Mowwa Chandrasekhara Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kowuturu Vinay Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27-07-2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in A.S. No. 1 of 1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 11-10-1996 passed by the District Munsif, Nuzvid, in O.S..No. 119 of 1986. 3. The defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. For the sake convenience the parties will be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant”. 4. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.119 of 1986 for injunction simplicitor in respect of an agricultural land of an extent of Ac:6-22 cents stating that they purchased the land from Raja of Nuzvid and his sons and that the defendants who are neighbouring landowners who also purchased the land from the same vendor, have been trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. However, the plaintiff admits that the plaint schedule property situated on the eastern side of the land of the defendants, which is an extent of Ac:10-61 cents. It is also an admitted fact that the defendants earlier filed OS.No.227 of 1958 against the plaintiff and others and obtained decree of permanent injunction. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the land of the plaintiff and defendants are two different lands and that the present suit, i.e., OS.No. 119 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff is not barred by res judicata. Both the courts below have also clarified that since both the lands are different, there is no impediment either factual or legal to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff, and therefore, he is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the trial court passed the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the first appellate court confirmed the same. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would contend that the first appellate court failed to consider the material documentary evidence marked as Exs. B-14 to Ex.B-27 received as additional evidence in the appeal, and the judgment is therefore liable to be set aside for not considering those documents. 6. Upon considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone though the judgment of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that even if the documents marked as Exs.B-14 to B-26 were considered, the judgment passed by the first appellate court would not have been different, for the reason that the first appellate court clarified that the land of the plaintiff and the land of defendants are different and distinct. As to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, it may be stated that the plaintiff sold away most part of the plaint schedule land long back i.e., long prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, they are not entitled for injunction in respect of the land to an extent of Ac:6-22 cents. It may be stated that the first appellate court clarified the situation by saying that since the lands are different, the injunction earlier granted in favour of the defendants, the decree of permanent injunction in OS.No.227 of 1958, is only in respect of the land, which is in actual possession of the defendants. Whereas the decree passed by the District Munsif, Nuzvid in OS.No.119 of 1986 which is confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in AS.No. 1 of 1997 would operate in respect of the actual land in possession of the plaintiff, and thus, there is no ambiguity in both the decrees and judgments. At this length of time, if the matter is remitted back to the first appellate court for considering Exs.B-14 to B-16, it is nothing but a futile exercise, since it would not have any impact on the judgments referred to above. Further both the courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion, since the property is quite distinct and separate, the decree in OS.No.227 of 1958 does not operate as res judicata and the said findings cannot be called in question in the second appeal since it is passed in accordance with law. 7. It is further clarified by this Court that the respective decrees and judgments relating to permanent injunction in the above mentioned two suits relate to the respective lands which are in actual possession of the parties and remained after the respective sales and also after the acquisition by the Government for public purpose. 8. This apart, there is no substantial question of law involved for consideration in the present second appeal, and therefore, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons afore-mentioned and the second appeal is dismissed without any costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R. KA NTHA RAO 22-02-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 4 OF 2007 CIRCULATION No. 36 Date: 22-02-2011 Court Master : I s L