IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 19 OF 2005 Between: Santoji Rao … Appellant-Plaintiff V/s. Ramesh Shah … Respondent-Defendant Counsel for the appellant : SRI V. HARIHARAN Counsel for the respondent: SRI G.N.ARUNA TULJA PURKAR The court made the following: Judgment follows 2nd page THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 19 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T : This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 06-10-2004 passed in AS.No. 258 of 2002 by the XII Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the judgment and decree dated 13-06-2002 passed in OS.No. 5189 of 1977 by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the ingress and egress of plaintiff’s western side of the house bearing No.13-4-672, situated at Karvan sahu, Hyderabad and removal of slab in between the houses of plaintiff and defendant towards western side was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The appellant instituted the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with passage for ingress and egress on the western side of his house and also mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to remove slab which is in between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s house towards western side. 4. The suit was resisted by the respondent contending that earlier he filed OS.No. 96 of 1970 on the file of the Court of IV Assistant Judge for declaration that the suit house belongs to his father and also to further declare that there is no common passage between the house of the appellant and the respondent i.e., in between house Nos. 13-4-671 and 13-4-672. Admittedly, the court directed removal of the structure over the land by granting the relief of mandatory injunction in OS.No. 96 of 1970. Against which, the appeal in A.S.No.42 of 1971 was filed and the said appeal was also dismissed. The appellant had filed S.A.No.777 of 1971 and it was also dismissed. 5. According to the respondent, the subject matter of dispute in OS.No. 96 of 1970 and the present case is one and the same between the same parties and the respondent is precluded from raising the same plea and the suit filed by him is not maintainable in law. Both the courts below analysed the entire evidence on record with reference to the pleadings of the parties arrived at concurrent finding that there is no common passage between the house of the appellant and the respondent i.e., in between house No. 13-4-671 and 13-4-672. That the appellant admitted in the cross-examination that he had complied with the decree passed in OS.No. 96 of 1970. Thus the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed and the counter-claim preferred by the respondent is decreed 6. The grounds, which have been urged by the appellant in the second appeal, relates to issue of fact and no substantial question of law is involved for consideration in the second appeal. Since the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have held concurrently that the appellant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. No substantial question of law being involved, the second appeal is not maintainable since this Court is not supposed to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 17-03-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 19 OF 2005 Circulation No. Date:17-3-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43