THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.817 OF 2011 30.09.2011 Between: Bandaru Veeraraju …. Appellant AND Kocherla Harischandraprasad And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.817 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.555 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. He filed the instant second appeal aggrieved by the concurrent Judgment of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in A.S.No.100 of 2009, dated 03.07.2010. The first respondent is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant and another from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property being R.C.C. slabbed building with 243 square yards of site situated at Repuru Gram Panchayat of East Godavari District. He alleged that he purchased the property from the second defendant under registered sale deed dated 18.08.1994 and when he wanted to construct compound wall on southern side, the first defendant obstructed for the same. After receiving suit summons, the first defendant opposed the suit. His contention was that the plaintiff was delivered possession under the sale deed leaving 6 feet punta on the northern side; all the other owners adjoining punta also left 8 feet site for the purpose of road and that the plaintiff highhandedly encroached upon the blue marked portion. The defendant also filed counter claim seeking possession of land admeasuring 30 square yards of site shown in blue colour in the plaint plan. After framing appropriate issues and conducting trial, the trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s suit as well as counter claim. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant alone approached the appellate Court by filing first appeal being A.S.No.100 of 2009 which was dismissed by the appellate Court. Now it is contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant/defendant that the plaintiff encroached 30 square yards of land as shown in blue colour of the plaint plan. The submission cannot be accepted. Both the Courts below recorded a finding that the defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the allegation of encroachment by the plaintiff. The second appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.09.2011 Pln