THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.958 of 2011 and Second Appeal No.1139 of 2011 Dated 09th September, 2011 Between: Keshaboina @ Wadapally Arunamma and others …Appellants And Angirekula @ Mekala Sailaja …Respondent Counsel for the appellants: Sri Laxman Batchu Counsel for respondents: ---- The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: These two second appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree, dated 25.01.2011, in A.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2008, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.337 of 2000. The plaintiff is the owner of plot No.2, Block No.1, Ward No.6 of Nalgonda Town. The defendants, who are the appellants, barring defendant No.5, who is no more, claim that plot No.1A belongs to defendant No.5 and plot No.1B belongs to defendant No.4. O.S.No.337 of 2000 was filed alleging that the defendants were trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of plot No.2. She sought for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing such interference. Defendant No.4 filed O.S.No.340 of 2000 for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff in respect of purported plot No.1B. It is the pleaded case of defendant No.4 in her suit that one Smt.K.Veena, who is the owner of plot No.3, encroached into plot No.2 of the plaintiff and in stead of retrieving the encroached portion from the said Veena, the plaintiff was trying to interfere with her possession over plot No.1B. Both the suits were clubbed and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.337 of 2000. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked on behalf of the Commissioner. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule plot? 2. Whether the suit for mere injunction without seeking the relief of recovery of possession is not maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary parties? 4. To what relief?” On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Consequently, the trial Court has decreed O.S.No.337 of 2000 and dismissed O.S.No.340 of 2000. A.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2008 filed against the said judgments and decrees by the defendants were dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial Court. At the hearing, Sri Laxman Batchu, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that both the Courts below have committed serious error in not considering the oral evidence on record, which gives rise to substantial question of law. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the Courts below. The trial Court minutely referred to the evidence adduced by both the parties. It has referred to the evidence of DW.1, who is defendant No.3, admitting the plaintiff’s possession of plot No.2 having purchased the same from one Jhansi Lakshmi through a registered sale deed. The trial Court found corroboration of the said statement with Exs.A1 to A5 filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court also placed reliance on Ex.A4, approved plan, in pursuance of which, the plaintiff has started construction of compound wall over plot No.2. The trial Court also placed reliance on the admission of DW.3 in his cross-examination that the plaintiff started construction of compound wall in the suit land and the defendants started interfering with her construction activity. The trial Court also observed that the documentary evidence plays a more vital role than oral evidence in a suit for perpetual injunction. The trial Court further found that the plea of the defendants that the owner of plot No.3, namely, Smt.K.Veena, has encroached the plot of the plaintiff is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The trial Court also found that the defendants failed to prove that plot No.1B is in existence. On the basis of the appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, in the manner noted above, the trial Court has accepted the plea of the plaintiff and rejected the plea of the defendants. The lower appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence and completely concurred with the findings of the trial Court. In my opinion, no question of law has arisen in these second appeals. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel that both the Courts below have failed to consider the relevant oral evidence. As noted hereinbefore, the trial Court has found that the defendants have failed to substantiate their plea that plot No.1B is in existence and that in the absence of any proof of existence of plot No.1B, the question of plaintiff encroaching the said plot does not arise. As regards the submission of the learned counsel that O.S.No.337 of 2000 is bad for non-joinder of Smt.K.Veena, it is interesting to note that even the defendants, who filed O.S.No.340 of 2000 and whose specific case is that Smt.K.Veena has encroached plot No.2 belonging to the plaintiff, failed to implead said Smt.K.Veena as a party to the said suit. When the defendants themselves have thought it not necessary to implead Smt.K.Veena to their own suit, they cannot be allowed to contend that she is a necessary or proper party to O.S.No.337 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the second appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that his clients may be left with the liberty to file suit for declaration of title. It always goes without saying that the appellants shall be free to file appropriate suit for declaration of title notwithstanding the judgments and decrees under this appeal. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeals, the interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th September, 2011 VGB