THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No.1087 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, dated 29.06.2009, in A.S.No.20 of 2006 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, dated 03.08.2006, in O.S.No.98 of 1994. The factual background of the case is that the appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are plaintiffs 1 to 4. Originally, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S.No.98 of 1994 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant over the suit shop. However, during pendency of the said suit, since plaintiff No.2, tenant of plaintiff No.1, died, his legal heirs i.e., plaintiffs 3 and 4 are brought on record. The defendant contested the suit stating that he nominally executed the sale deed in respect of the suit shop in favour of plaintiff No.1, as a security to the loan amount taken by him from the father of plaintiff No.1, that the suit shop is not purchased by the plaintiff for valuable consideration, as stated by the plaintiff, that he cleared the loan amount on 05.07.1994, upon which the father of plaintiff No.1 executed a receipt of acknowledgement to that effect and also promised to execute the deed of re-conveyance in his favour, and the suit is not maintainable since the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit shop even at the time of filing of the suit. The trial Court, after appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for, by judgment dated 03.08.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed A.S.No.20 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, and the appellate Court, having found that the trial Court has properly appreciated the material evidence produced by both the parties, by the judgment dated 29.06.2009 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenging the judgment of the appellate Court, this second appeal is preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs. Perused the judgments under second appeal. Both the Courts below, upon appreciation of the evidence on record and the contentions put forth by the respective counsel, have found that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit shop under the documents Exs.A1 to A9, as they clearly established the same, and he accrued his right and title over the subject property basing on the said documents. Further, it was found that though D.Ws.2 and 3 have only deposed about the factum of execution of sale deed (Ex.A1) by the defendant in favour of plaintiff No.1, as a nominal and security purpose against the loan amount obtained from the father of plaintiff No.1, the contents of the sale deed do not speak about the conditional sale or mortgage, so as to attract the provision under Section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant was no way helpful since no material documents are placed in support of his case, and, accordingly, both the Courts below gave concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiffs. The conclusions arrived at by the Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence, no interference is called for by this Court with the judgments under appeal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and more particularly when there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 30.11.2009 v v