THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL Nos.1256 and 1284 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both the counsel. In both these appeals, the parties are one and the same. Hence, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed two separate suits i.e., O.S.No.1107 of 2005 and O.S.No.1325 of 2005 respectively on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for permanent injunction as well as for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 16-03- 1994. The trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, dismissed the said suits on 31-10-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed A.S.Nos.347 of 2007 and 3 of 2008 respectively on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, vide its common judgment and decree, dated 21-12-2009, dismissed the appeals confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the present second appeals. Admittedly, the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.1-15 cents out of Ac.2-98 cents in D.No.72/1A situated at Medikonduru Village and Mandal, Guntur District, belongs to the husband of the 1st defendant. It is the case of the appellant that the husband of the 1st defendant and his sons i.e., defendants 2 and 3 have executed Ex.A-1- agreement of sale and that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having paid part consideration and, therefore, he is entitled for permanent injunction as well as specific performance of the agreement of sale. In support of his contention, he filed Ex.A-1-copy of agreement of sale, dated 16-03- 1994 and Ex.A-6-copy of cist receipt. . It is the case of the defendants that the so called agreement of sale is not executed by the husband of the 1st defendant and the said agreement of sale was drafted as if the husband of the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 have executed the agreement of sale, but admittedly, the signatures of defendants 2 and 3 were not obtained and it was kept blank at the signatures of executants 2 and 3 and no consideration was paid and that no possession was given to the plaintiff. In support of their contention, the defendants filed Exs.B-1 to B-7 to prove that possession was not given to the plaintiff, that they are in continuous possession of the said property, that the revenue records would show that the defendants alone are cultivating the said land and that they have also paid cist. It is further stated that in fact they have also obtained agricultural loan and the same was entered in the passbook. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A-1- agreement of sale and also possession over the suit schedule property and accordingly, dismissed the suits vide separate orders, dated 31- 10-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed A.S.Nos.347 of 2007 and 3 of 2008 respectively on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, vide its common judgment and decree, dated 21-12-2009, dismissed the appeals confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Second Appeals are filed. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. I am of the opinion that the trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record, rightly dismissed the suits with costs. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeals confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these Second Appeals. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21-10-2011 Prv