HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.661 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22.06.0211, passed in A.S.No.165 of 2011 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order and decree, dated 01.06.2011, passed in E.A.No.296 of 2010 in E.P.No.50 of 2008 by the learned X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The claim petitioner-third party filed the said E.A. under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying the Court to adjudicate his objections before execution of the decree and delivery of possession. He contended that the decree-holder agreed to sell the E.P. schedule property during the pendency of the appeal, but, later on resisted and hence, he filed O.S.No.1520 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the decree-holder. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the same on the ground that the conduct of the claim petitioner would clearly and clinchingly go to show that the petition is filed with an intention to drag and prolong the execution and that he is not allowing the decree-holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree. Aggrieved by the same, the claim petitioner carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.165 of 2011 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below erred in not considering the fact that the appellant and his wife are in physical possession of the petition schedule property and the entire sale consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- was deposited to the credit of O.S.No.1520 of 2008 and that the Courts below ought to have allowed the appellant to mark the docket proceedings in O.S.No.1520 of 2008 which would establish that the decree holder is solely responsible for recording compromise. 4. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on that the ground that the E.P.No.50 of 2008 was allowed on 09.12.2010 directing the judgment-debtor to vacate and handover the physical vacant possession of E.P. schedule property, which order was passed on contest by the judgment-debtor; that the judgment-debtor is no other than the wife of the claim petitioner; that the judgment-debtor is not a party in O.S.No.1520 of 2008 filed by the claim petitioner against the decree-holder and that the lower appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the entire material placed on record, held that the claim petitioner failed to establish sufficiently, and as required under law, his instant right, title and interest, if any, over the E.P. schedule property entitling him to resist the decree-holder from obtaining delivery of the schedule property. 5. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 7. The Second Appeal is devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 15th July 2011 DR