HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.69 OF 2004 & 70 OF 2004 Dated 21.6.2011 SECOND APPEAL No.69 OF 2004 Between: Kunchala Venkateswarlu. …Appellant. And: Mundlamuri Ramaiah. …Respondent. SECOND APPEAL No.70 OF 2004 Between: Kunchala Venkateswarlu. …Appellant. And: Mundlamuri Ramaiah. Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.69 OF 2004 & 70 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the cases. In spite of the matter undergoing several adjournments, none appears for the respondent. Both the second appeals have been filed by the appellant who is plaintiff in O.S.No.346 of 1995 and defendant in O.S.No.66 of 1996. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are one and the same and between the same parties, they are being disposed of by a common Judgment. The appellant filed O.S.No.346 of 1995 for declaration of his title and consequential injunction. The suit property is a house situate in six gadies of land with it is an appurtenant site. The total extent is said to be Ac.0.10 cents. Respondent filed O.S.No.66 of 1996 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the same subject matter. The contention of the respondent is that the appellant is only a licensee under him and his possession is permissive possession. On the other hand, the appellant’s contention is that he has been in possession of the house which is situated in 6 gadies of land and it’s appurtenant site belonging to the plaintiff for a period of more than 12 years by open assertion of title. Both the Courts below have found that the possession of the appellant is adverse in so far as the house which is situated in six gadies of the land is concerned, but rendered concurrent finding that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the vacant site. Therefore, both the Courts below have held that the appellant has acquired adverse title only to the house property but not to the site and thus, the claim of the appellant was partly allowed. In these two second appeals, the appellant challenges the finding in so far as the vacant site is concerned. The 1st appellate Court, basing on Exs.A.1 and A.2 certified copy of the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of the 3rd party in which the scheduled mentioned property is shown as one of the boundaries and Ex.A.2 certified copy 10 (1) Account, respectively and also considering that the appellant did not adduce any evidence showing his possession in respect of his vacant site, held that the vacant site belongs to the respondent and the appellant failed to establish that he acquired adverse title to the said vacant site and held that the respondent is entitled for recovery of possession. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant failed to prove that he has acquired adverse title to the vacant site adjacent to the house property in which the appellant has been residing. Thus, both the Courts have rejected the plea of adverse possession of the appellant in so far as the vacant site is concerned. Admittedly, the appellant did not adduce any evidence showing his possession over the site. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below on the said issue cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence on record. This Court, in exercise of it’s jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. will only interfere when the 1st appellate Court records the findings erroneously in deciding any substantial question of law. In the instant case, the finding of fact recorded by the 1st appellate Court in so far as the vacant site is concerned cannot be said to be perverse. The finding arrived at by the 1st appellate Court in so far as the issue of fact is concerned is final and this Court will not interfere with the said finding in relation to the fact. No substantial question of law is involved in both the second appeals. Therefore, both the Second appeals are devoid of any merit and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the Second Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ Justice R.KANTHA RAO Dated 21.6.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.69 OF 2004 & 70 OF 2004 Dated 21.6.2011