IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL NO : 281 of 2009 (Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree dated 11/02/2004 in AS No. 35 of 1999 on the file of the Court of VII ADDL.DISTRICT COURT(FTC),MADANAPALLE preferred against the decree dated 25/02/2099 in OS No. 431 of 1996 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Piler) Between: 1 Gandla Mohammed Ali S/o. Muradshah R/o. Marripadu Village and Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 Gandla Rahamathulla S/o. Mohammed Ali R/o. Marripadu Village and Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Nabhusabgari Valli Saheb S/o. Khasim Saheb 2 Syed Ghouse Peer S/o. Abdul Saheb R/o. Marripadu Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 Smt. Reddy Boo @ Reddy Bee W/o. Ghouse Peer R/o. Marripadu Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 Gandla Muradhshah (died) R/o. Marripadu Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 Gandla Ajmeer S/o. Mohammad Ali R/o. Marripadu Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 Gandla Yakub S/o. Murad Shah R/o. Marripadu Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 Gandla Azeem S/o. Murad Shah R/o. Marripadu Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.S.BHATT The Court Delivered the Following JUDGEMENT:-- Form-NIC-OGS/SA{NR} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.281 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellants herein are the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.431/1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 in the said suit from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 25.02.1999 holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction and the defendants have not acquired any right of pathway by prescription or by any easement. In fact there was no dispute with regard to title of the suit schedule property and defendants never disputed the title of the plaintiffs with regard to the plaint schedule property. The case of the defendants was that they have a right of pathway from the lands of the plaintiffs. But the said right was not at all established. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed appeal in A.S.35/99 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and the lower appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal by judgment dated 11.02.2004, against which, this second appeal is filed. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below. The claim of the defendants that there was a pathway on the ridges of Sy.No.145 and 146 to reach their lands was not at all established and in fact as per the evidence of DW 1, DW 3 and C1 and C2 Advocate commissioners reports the defendants have got other way to reach to their lands. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 13.08.2009 Dsr