IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.757 of 2009 Between: Pachisetti Krishna Murthy and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Endapalle Boyakondappa (died) and 10 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court Delivered the Following JUDGEMENT:-- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.757 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Appellants are the defendants 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S.167/1988 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The said suit was filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is D- Form patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the case of defendants Nos.2 and 3 that the plaintiffs sold the said property in favour of the 1st defendant under Ex.B2 unregistered sale deed dated 25.06.1969, which in turn defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have purchased the same under Ex.B8 registered sale deed dated 29.04.1987 from the 1st defendant. It is further stated that the defendants have filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction in O.S.65/1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle and obtained ex parte decree under Ex.B4 and therefore the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is hit by principles of res judicata and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. The trial Court rejected the said contentions of the defendants and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the defendants filed appeal in A.S.47/1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 23.09.2009 dismissed the said appeal. Against which, this second appeal has been filed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs even though the plaintiffs suffered the decree of injunction in O.S.65/1984 filed by the defendants. It is further stated that the sale transaction between the parties has taken place much prior to the commencement of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and therefore, the provisions of the said Act have no application. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is the assigned land. Both the Courts below held that the sale deed said to have been obtained by the 1st defendant under Ex.B2 is only a sada sale deed, but not a registered one. The plaintiffs denied the execution of Ex.B2 sale deed and admittedly Ex.B2 sale deed is not a registered one. Except Ex.B2 sale deed there is no other material whatsoever in proof of the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs have transferred the said property in favour of the 1st defendant. The trial Court further held that there is clear prohibition of transfer of assigned property by Act 9/77. It is admitted by DW 3 who is the second appellant herein that they never cultivated the land and they have not paid any cist for the said land. The trial Court also observed that as per Ex.B8 the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land. In fact, DKT patta was never cancelled or possession was resumed by the authorities and therefore, granting of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial Court is proper and valid and it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any error. The lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record dismissed the appeal. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 30.10.2009 Dsr