THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.345 of 2009 Date:18.03.2011 Between: Ippili Krishna Murthy and others ..... Appellants AND Neethubilli Appalaswamy and others .....Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy Counsel for Respondents: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree in A.S.No.179 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (made over from the Court of the District Judge, Srikakulam, A.S.No.8 of 2000) confirming the judgment and decree, dated 25.11.1999, in O.S.No.3 of 1992, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa. The respondents herein filed the suit for declaration of title, for eviction of the appellants and for recovery of Rs.3,000/- towards past profits for the year 1991-92 from them. The suit was decreed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa by judgment and decree, dated 25.11.1999. A.S.No.8 of 2000 was filed by the appellants in the Court of the District Court, Srikakulam, which was later transferred to the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and re- numbered as A.S.No.179 of 2003. The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2009, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present second appeal is filed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the respondents acquired right over the suit schedule property as reversioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the Courts below have erred in rejecting Exs.B1 and B2, agreement of sale and stamped receipt, produced by the appellants in evidence and holding that the appellants have failed to prove the said documents. In order to appreciate these contentions, the case of the respective parties needs to be briefly discussed. One Gavarayya was in possession of the suit properties. The land originally belongs to yembada family. The said Gavarayya is the husband of the paternal aunt of the respondents. During the lifetime of said Gavarayya, rough pattas were issued in respect of the land. He and his wife died issueless. As such, rights over the land came to be vested in the respondents as reversioners. It is the case of the appellants that Gavarayya had held tenancy rights through agreement, dated 24.03.1971, marked as Ex.B1 and the said Gavarayya also passed stamped receipts marked as Ex.B2. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the appellants failed to prove Exs.B1 and B2. They have also held that the respondents being reversioners have succeeded to the properties left behind by Gavarayya, who had title over the land by virtue of rough patta granted in his favour. It is in the background of these facts and the findings of the Courts below that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants need to be considered. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel, the same is merely based on the submission that Gavarayya being the husband of the respondents’ paternal aunt, the respondents did not find place in Class-I and Class-II heirs of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, they cannot be considered as reversioners. He has, however, fairly admitted that no plea based on this contention is raised on behalf of the appellants in the Courts below, but he argued that as this is purely a question of law, this Court may consider the same. In my opinion, the question whether the respondents are reversioners or not depends upon the fact as to who between Gavarayya and his wife died earlier. Therefore, it is a mixed question of fact and law. Unless the appellants have raised this plea, on the basis of which, an issue has been framed and findings are rendered by the Courts below, it is not possible for this Court to entertain this plea for the first time in the second appeal. Therefore, this contention is rejected. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel, I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellants have failed to prove Exs.B1 and B2. Therefore, these findings falling in the realm of appreciation of evidence are not liable for interference, in this second appeal, as no substantial question of law arises therefrom. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, S.A.M.P.Nos.780/2009 and 2450/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th March, 2011 VGB