THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.816 of 2011 Dated:08.09.2011 Between: Kongu Chittody, And others. …Appellants and Church of Christian, Thimmapuram, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.816 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants are defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in O.S.No.1205 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The said suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (hereafter called, the plaintiffs) for permanent injunction restraining the appellants and the third respondent herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., ABEF portion and not to meddle with X, X1 and X2 compound wall of the plaint plan situated in survey No.326 of Thimmapuram Village of Kakinada Rural Mandal. The suit was dismissed on 06.05.2008. In appeal, however, the plaintiffs were successful. Reversing the trial Court’s judgment, the first appellate Court, namely, the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, being A.S.No.123 of 2009, on 22.12.2009, aggrieved by which the present appeal is filed. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows. They purchased the plaint schedule property under two sale deeds from one Chandra Rao, who is the father of the second plaintiff; they applied to the Gram Panchayat for construction of a Church, which was granted on 13.02.2001; after completion of the building in GHIJ portion, they also constructed a compound wall X1, X2 and X3; a doorway between the points X & X2 was also made to use the pathway to go to the road on the north; defendant No.1 who owns the property on the eastern side of plaint schedule instigated defendant Nos.2 to 4 to remove the compound wall and all of them threatened to dismantle the compound wall and hence the suit. The defendants filed a common written statement. They alleged that the plaintiffs’ sale deeds contained incorrect measurements; there is a passage of 10 feet width with all the villagers situated on the eastern side of the property, and the plaintiffs who constructed the compound wall recently occupied the eastern passage closing it highhandedly. The plaintiffs also tried to further obstruct the free passage of the villagers denying ingress and egress. The trial Court conducted enquiry into the lone issue as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled for permanent injunction. Plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A22. The Advocate Commissioner – P.W.4, marked Exs.C1 to C5. Two witnesses were examined by the defendants, but no documents were marked. On considering the evidence, the trial Court rejected the evidence of P.W.1 and came to the conclusion that eastern side of the plaint schedule property is the pathway, and that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show their possession. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The appellate Court, however, reappreciated the evidence and granted the decree of injunction. Counsel for the appellants (defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4) would submit that the reliance placed by the appellate Court on Exs.A1 and A2 is erroneous because they were the sale deeds executed by none other than the father of the second plaintiff and no link documents were marked to disprove the case of the defendants that there is a passage on the eastern side for the villagers. He would nextly contend that when the plaintiffs failed to prove their title to the suit schedule property, grant of injunction is erroneous. The appellate Court considered the boundaries in the two sale deeds Exs.A1 and A2 and recorded finding that the entire extent of 269½ square yards was purchased by the plaintiffs and when they constructed the Church and the boundary wall, defendants never objected taking the plea that there was passage on the eastern side. The appellate Court also relied on the admission made by D.W.1 that there are no documents to show the passage on the east and north of the plaint schedule property. As the burden was not discharged by the defendants, an inference was drawn against them holding that the plaintiffs’ possession was valid. The appreciation of evidence and the conclusions drawn therefrom by the appellate Court is sound. The questions of fact were determined against the defendants by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The second appeal, therefore, does not involve any question of law, and therefore, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.09.2011 vs