THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA S.A. No. 1467 of 2010 Judgment: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 40 of 2008, filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2008, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, dismissing the suit in O.S. No. 81 of 2004, filed by the appellant against the respondents, seeking decree of recovery of vacant physical possession of the suit land admeasuring 60 Sq. yds., bearing Door No.5-21, situated in Sy. No.11, Parigi village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal passed by the Courts below. The appellant states that he purchased 300 Sq. yds. of land, and that he constructed a house in 240 Sq. yds. leaving an extent of 60 Sq. yds. of land for his use. Though the appellant contends that since he is in possession and enjoyment of the 60 Sq. yds. of the suit land, and as the respondents without any manner of right encroached upon the same, he sought recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, but the Courts committed an error in refusing to grant the same, the fact remains, the appellant, in his cross-examination as P.W.1 admitted that he purchased the land under Ex. A1 and that at the time of registration he informed the Sub-Registrar that he purchased the land admeasuring 10 x 30 Sq. yds. for sale consideration of Rs.3,000/-, but this evidence of P.W.1, the Courts below concurrently found, was contrary to the recitals in Ex. A1, wherein the description of the measurement of the land is mentioned as 8 x 30 yards and sale consideration is shown as Rs.1,000/-. The Courts below further found that the appellant as P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that he constructed the house in an extent of 300 Sq. yds. of land by obtaining permission, and that being so, the Courts below held that the possibility of the appellant leaving any open land, much less 60 Sq. yds. does not arise. The Courts below further found that the entire case of the appellant was based on Ex. A2-agreement of sale, which is said to have been executed four years after Ex. A1-registered sale deed, was executed and that Ex. A2 was an unregistered agreement of sale. That, if according to the appellant, the description of the measurements of the land were wrongly mentioned in Ex. A1, he ought to have obtained rectification deed, which he did not do, and instead obtained Ex. A2-agreement of sale, which is an unregistered one. The above findings recorded by the Courts below, being based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said findings. This apart, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting its admission or interference with the judgment under appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. There is no merit in the second appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 21st January, 2011. IBL