THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1204 of 2010 Dated:24th November, 2010 Between: 1. Chigullapally Rangaiah (died) per L.Rs. & Ors. ..... Appellants AND 1. Chigullapally Pattabhiramaiah & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1204 of 2010 ORDER: The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.52 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Mahabubnagar, whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2004 passed in O.S.No.202 of 1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Jadcherla. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this Second Appeal by the legal representatives of Chigullapalli Rangaiah are: a) Chigullapalli Rangaiah filed O.S.No.202 of 1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla for declaration of title and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule houses bearing Nos.30-51/1, 30-52/1 and 30-53/1 situated at Badepally village, Jadcherla Mandal. He also sought for restoration of entries in the Gram Panchayat Register in his favour in respect of the suit schedule houses. It is the case of Chigullapalli Rangaiah that he got the suit schedule houses in partition with his brothers in the year 1975. 1st defendant Chigullapally Patabhi Ramaiah is the brother of Chigullapalli Rangaiah. 2nd defendant Chigullapally Srinivasulu and 3rd defendant C.Ravi Shankar are children of 1st defendant. Chigullapally Pattabhiramaiah, who has been arrayed as 1st defendant, filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant claimed that he is the owner of the houses bearing Nos.30-51/1, 30-52/1 and 30-53/1 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants 2 and 3 filed memo adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant. b) The trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief? The trial Court also framed the following additional issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the suit property? 2) Whether the court fee paid is proper? c) On behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as PW.1 and examined 3 more witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and marked 8 documents as Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined as DW.1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.B1 to B6. d) The learned Junior Civil Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the property and thereby answered all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and accordingly, dismissed the suit, by judgment dated 30.07.2004. e) The plaintiff filed A.S.No.52 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2004 passed in O.S.No.202 of 1996. The learned Additional District Judge, on re-appreciation of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by judgment dated 09.04.2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the judgment of the lower appellate court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court failed to consider Ex.A1 partition deed and thereby erred in recording a finding with regard to title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The learned counsel refers the documents, which have been exhibited as Ex.A2 Permission proceedings issued by Gram Panchayat, Badepally along with plan and Ex.A6 Ownership Certificate, dated 31.12.1992. 5. I have gone through the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1. He does not speak of his possession over the property after the alleged partition dated 10.11.1975. No effort has been made by the plaintiff to prove the contents therein. No evidence has been adduced to speak of his possession over the suit schedule property after the alleged partition. Mere marking of the permission proceedings issued by the Gram Panchayat does not establish the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the suit/appeal. I do not see any perversity in the appreciation of evidence brought on record by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. No substantial questions of law have been made out warranting admission of the Second Appeal. 6. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th November, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1204 of 2010 Dated:24th November, 2010