IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.113 of 2000 BETWEEN Reddi Appalanaidu. …APPELLANT AND Smt. Godela Rajeswari and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. T. NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. SARVA BHOUMA RAO The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: Appellant, who was plaintiff in O.S.No.1158 of 1991, sought permanent injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with his alleged possession over 74 sq. yards of site in Sy.Nos.46 and 46/1 of Maddilapalem village. 2. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff only establishes that he is in physical possession of 17 sq. yards and accordingly, confined the relief in the suit only to the said 17 sq. yards. The appellant filed an appeal to the extent of disallowed claim before the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.325 of 1997. On consideration of the entire record, the lower appellate Court also concurred with the view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal against which the present second appeal is preferred. 3. This appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law raised at ground No.7 in the grounds of appeal, as under: (a) Whether the learned District Judge is justified in dismissing the appeal when the appellant has got possessory title over the suit schedule property and the respondents not being the real owner of the property has no right over the property. (b) Whether the learned District Judge is justified in dismissing the appeal without permitting the appellant to amend the prayer when the respondents have encroached on to the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. (c) Whether the learned District Judge is justified in dismissing the appeal when the appellant has produced before the Court the oral and documentary evidence and the same was not rebutted by the respondents. 4. On an examination of the record of the case and the findings of both the Courts below, it is evident that the appellant/plaintiff, admittedly, is claiming injunction with respect to poramboke land. He has, as such, no title thereto but relies upon Ex.A4 licence fee receipt said to have been paid by him so as to entitle him to occupy the premises. The said licence fee was paid to the third respondent – municipal corporation. Even taking that into account, the admitted case of the plaintiff is that the mother of defendant No.2 encroached on rest of the site except 17 sq. yards and as such, his possession is only to the extent of 17 sq. yards and the said findings reached by both the Courts below need no interference in the second appeal. The substantial questions of law, as prayed, do not arise for consideration on facts of the case when the plaintiff himself is not in possession of the rest of the suit schedule land. The suit for injunction was rightly decreed by both the Courts below to the extent of 17 sq. yards. The second appeal, therefore, has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 24, 2010 DSK