IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1342 of 2010 Between: Gorakala Vallamma ..... Appellant AND Pandari Polamma & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri K. Manik Prabhu The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1342 of 2010 ORDER: This Second Appeal arises out of the concurrent findings contained in the judgments dated 09.04.2004 and 25.01.2010 in O.S.No.43 of 1996 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta (for short, “the trial Court”) and A.S.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta (for short, “the lower appellate Court”) respectively. I have heard Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The appellant filed the abovementioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The appellant examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his side. The respondents examined DW.1 to DW.4 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. Having regard to the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues. “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 2) To what relief?” On issue No.1, on appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court held that the appellant failed to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the said finding. I have carefully perused the judgments under appeal and am convinced that the reasoning of both the Courts below are sound and in conformity with the evidence on record. Except the pattadar pass book marked as Ex.A1 and the cist receipts for the periods pertaining to 1991-93 and 1995-96, no relevant documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to show that as on the date of filing of the suit in the year 2003, he was in possession of the property. As possession on the date of filing of the suit is sine qua non for grant of injunction, both the Courts below have held that the appellant failed to make out a case for grant of injunction. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law for interference with the judgments under appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, SAMP No.2884 of 2010 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.02.2011 ES