HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO S.A.No. 696 of 1997 Date: 15-04-2011 Between: M. Chinnabba ……. Appellant and K. Varadaiah Naidu and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO S.A.No.696 of 1997 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the first defendant in this appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 19-02-1997 in A.S.No.55 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, allowing the appeal at the instance of the plaintiff and setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 13-12-1990 in O.S.No.610 of 1980 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Chittoor and decreeing the suit. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the suit, the first respondent herein, who is now represented by legal representatives, sought for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession. The case of the plaintiff rests on the alleged purchase of the suit land by a registered sale deed, dated 16-01-1965 and being in possession accordingly. Earlier civil proceedings went on in O.S.No.27 of 1965, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, and appeals filed thereon were also dismissed. Inspite of the same, in view of the acts on the part of the defendants to grab the suit schedule property and also the other proceedings, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Contesting the suit, the plea of the defendants was that of total denial of the claim put forth by the plaintiff and further asserting that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 19-06-1979 from one Lakshmamma. The defendants pleaded unawareness about the other allegations contained in the plaint and also lack of knowledge in regard to the suit in O.S.No.27 of 1965. It is only due to the local non-cooperation from the village Karnam, the plaintiff is taking advantage thereof. On these and other allegations, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff’s vendor has got right title and possession to the property purchased by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff’s sale deed is valid and binding on the defendant? 3. Whether the decree in O.S.No.27 of 1965 is binding on the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and for permanent injunction as prayed for? 5. To what relief? During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, of which included the plaintiff as PW-1 and PW-2 is another supporting witness, and Exs.A-1 to A-22 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined, of which included the first defendant as DW-1 and DWs.2 and 3 are the supporting witnesses, and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. On consideration of the entire evidence and the material on record, the trial Court initially dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the appeal. The lower appellate Court, on once again reappraisal of the evidence and the material on record, has found that having regard to the title as established through the cogent evidence and the material, which has not been properly considered by the trial Court, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief. Further it is also found that the plaintiff, apart from having title, is in possession of the suit schedule property, and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The plea of the defendants in regard to the possession was also negatived. Therefore, both the findings as to the title and in regard to the possession are purely on appreciation of the evidence and the material on record and are factual one. The appellate Court being a last resort on appreciation on factual side, the said findings of the appellate Court become final. In this appeal, nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant to show any perversity or that the findings are not based on a valid reason or material as such and therefore, it cannot be said that any substantial point much less question of law arises in this appeal. Having regard to the finding of fact, no question of law much less any valid substantial one is involved in this appeal. There are no merits in this appeal. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 15-04-2011 YCR