THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.625 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.01.2010, passed in A.S.No.200 of 2005 by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 06.06.2005, passed in O.S.No.1 of 2000 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.1 of 2000 for specific performance of Possessory Sale Agreement, dated 08.06.1987 and for consequential permanent injunction. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the same on the ground that there was no explanation by the plaintiff with regard to his filing the suit after a lapse of 13 years from the date of the said possessory sale agreement and that he did not examine the two attestors of the said agreement. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.200 of 2005 before the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below should have seen that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.35,000/-at the time of the agreement and is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and that he is in continuous possession of the suit property more than 13 years. 4. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1-possessory sale agreement by the first defendant as General Power of Attorney Holder of the second respondent for the suit schedule property and that there is absolutely no proper explanation on the part of the appellant for the delay of 13 years in filing the suit from the date of the said agreement. 5. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 7. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:09.07.2010 sj