HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.279 OF 2010 Dt.2.7.2010 Between: G.Rosamma (died) and others ..Appellants And The Board of Trustees, T.T.D., Rep. by its Chairman, Holding office of Tirumala and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.279 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2009 in A.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2001 in O.S.No.80 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The 1st appellant originally filed O.S.No.80 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for grant of permanent injunction to declare that she got right to carrying on business as sitting hawker in pasupu kumkam and dollars in the vacant site in front of Mothilal Choultry in Sannidhi Street, Tirumala. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 9.2.2001 holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed appeal suit in A.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati and during the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff died and her legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 6.11.2009. After appreciating the evidence on record, the lower appellate court dismissed the said appeal holding that the licence that was held by the deceased plaintiff G.Rosamma was renewed up to 31.3.2001 alone and even that licence was subject to certain conditions and as per conditions mentioned in Exs.A-2 and B- 1 the deceased plaintiff was not permitted to carry on business as a sitting hawker in the plaint schedule property and the licence was expired long back in March, 2001 and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled for grant of permanent injunction. More over, the licence is not transferable to legal heirs and accordingly dismissed the appeal suit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate court rightly confirmed the order of the trial court. I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 2.7.2010 kpr