THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.184 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant and the respondent are neighbours in Kurnool Town. The appellant filed O.S.No.263 of 1988 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Kurnool against the respondent for the relief of declaration to the effect that the open site and a pial between their houses belongs to her exclusively, for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the windows that are opened towards the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from using the property in any manner. The appellant pleaded that she purchased the property through Ex.A1, dated 09.01.1956, from one Seshanna and ever since then, she is in exclusive possession of the same. It was alleged that the respondent has highhandedly opened the windows towards the suit schedule property. The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations. He stated that he purchased the property, on which he constructed house, from the same vendor through Ex.B1, dated 14.07.1966, and that the appellant never had any exclusive right vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit in part, through its judgment, dated 30.08.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.117 of 1996 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was dismissed on 05.10.1998. Hence, this second appeal. Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have disbelieved Ex.A2, a document dated 21.05.1939, by citing certain reasons and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that a document, which is 30 years old or more, deserves to be taken on its face value. He further contends that the respondent does not have any right vis-à-vis the property. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanen t injunction as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? To prove her case, the appellant examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The respondent examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Ex.B1. The sketch survey plan which was filed through a third party was marked as Ex.X1. The trial Court found that the appellant failed to prove her case and dismissed the suit. The same result ensued in the lower appellate Court also. The appellant on the one hand, and the respondent on the other, purchased the property from a common vendor. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was conveyed the suit schedule property under Ex.A1. On the other hand, the evidence on record disclosed that she never enjoyed any exclusive rights over the open space in which there existed a peepal tree with platform and that it was being used by the local people in common, so much so, pooja was also being performed there. The only basis, which the appellant pleaded, was Ex.A2 a document, dated 21.05.1939. It was said to have been executed by Sri Pedda Govindappa in favour of his brother Seshanna, who is the common vendor of the appellant and the respondent. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court recorded a finding to the effect that by the time the vendor under Ex.A2 conveyed the property, there was no partition and in that view of the matter, no importance can be attached to it. This Court does not find any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2010 kdl