THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. SECOND APPEAL No. 64 of 2007. JUDGEMENT: This second appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dt. 10.11.2006 in A.S.No. 63 of 1996 of the learned District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam whereby the learned District Judge confirmed the Judgement and Decree dt. 30.8.1996 in O.S.No. 51 of 1990 passed bt the learned Jr. Civil Judge, Kaikalur. The defendants are the appellants. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff purchased 0.04 cents of land in R.S.No. 1058/9 of Guravaipalem from the 1st appellant out of total extent of 0.41 cents under a registered sale deed dt. 30.12.1981 and erected a thatched house therein and has been residing in it and that in May 1990, the thatched house was damaged due to heavy cyclone and thereafter when he tried to construct a new house, the appellants interfered with the construction and then he filed the suit for permanent injunction. The suit filed by the respondent was resisted by the appellants contending that the respondent/plaintiff is trying to encroach the western side vacant portion and that as per the village Panchayat records of 1983-84, the respondent was in possession of 84 square meters under assessment No. 257 and during 1988-89 the respondent was in possession of 141 square meters with new assessment No. 94, which indicates that the respondent encroached an extent of 57 square meters as against his original possession of 84 square meters in 1983-84 and that under the guise of constructing a new house, he is trying to encroach further land belonging to them and therefore sought to dismiss the suit. On the above pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. ii) To what relief. Before the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff was examined as Pw.1 and examined Pws 2 and 3 and got marked Exs:A.1 to A.4. To substantiate their contention, appellants/defendants examined DWs 1 to 3 but no documents were marked on their behalf. The Commissioner’s report and plan were marked as Exs:C.1 and C.2. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that respondent/plaintiff has been in possession of Ac. 0.04 cents of land in R.S.No. 1058/9 of Guravaipalem village within the boundaries mentioned in Ex:A.1. Basing on the evidence of the Commissioner, the trial court further held that though the land was not measured by the Commissioner, the boundaries of the land within which the respondent was in possession are tallying with the boundaries mentioned in Ex:A.1 sale deed and that the respondent has been in possession of the suit schedule land since 19983 i.e. from the date of purchase under Ex:A.1 from the 1st appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that actually the suit schedule land is in rectangular shape but not in square shape as claimed by the respondent. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff have stated that the respondent has been in possession of 0.04 cents of land since 15 years prior to their deposition in the court. Further the appellants never raised any specific contention that the respondent is not in possession of Ac. 0.04 cents of land. The main dispute as has been assessed by the trial court is with regard to western boundary. The boundaries on south and west are in the same survey number and no names are given for southern and western boundaries. Dw.2 in his cross-examination admitted that the land under occupation of Gudavalli Nageswara Rao is on the west of the land purchased by the respondent. Dw.1 further admitted that Gudavalli Nageshwar Rao has been residing in their site with their permission. There is no discrepancy regarding western boundary. It is obvious from the evidence adduced by the appellants that the western boundary of the respondent is one Gudavalli Nageswara Rao who is in occupation of the appellants remaining site. The appellate court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and confirmed the findings of the trial court in all respects. From the findings of the courts below, there is no discrepancy as to the boundaries of the schedule property and the respondent is not claiming more than 0.04 cents of land which he purchased under Ex:A.1 from the 1st appellant. In the circumstances, I find no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal and therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below with regard to boundary dispute. No merits in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 8.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. SECOND APPEAL No. 64 of 2007. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 8.12.2010.