THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.201 of 2011 Dated 11th November, 2011 Between: Konka Joyel …Appellant And Marineni Flourinamma …Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri A.H.Chakravarthy Counsel for respondent: Sri M.Madhava Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 09.02.2010, in A.S.No.19 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 11.12.2006, in O.S.No.38 of 2002, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of land admeasuring 1’ x 54’ forming part of premises bearing No.10-83 comprised in 995 sq.yards as shown in the suit schedule sketch. It is the case of the appellant that the suit schedule property consists of a house situated on 995 sq.yards of land and that the respondent, who has house towards the north-east corner encroached to the extent of 1’x 54’ of his house in the year 1999. The appellant therefore filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The respondent filed written statement denying any such encroachment. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title in respect of the suit land? 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing suit? 3. To what relief?” In support of his case, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and also let in the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 on his side. The appellant got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. The respondent examined herself as DW.1 and also examined DW.2 on her side. No exhibits were marked on her behalf. On a thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that Ex.A1, white paper sale deed, which was subsequently impounded on the basis of which the appellant has sought for relief in the suit does not contain either any measurements or boundaries. It is further held that even the rough sketch attached to Ex.A1 was not originally part of the sale deed, the same is added subsequently. The appellant has relied on Ex.A5, letter of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, wherein he has directed the respondent to demolish the construction made by her. The trial Court has taken note of the fact that the appeal filed against the said order is pending. DW.2, Panchayat Secretary of Munugode Gram Panchayat, has deposed that the suit schedule house stands in the name of V.Rudraiah s/o Lingaiah admeasuring 272 sq.yards only, but not 995 sq.yards as alleged by the appellant. The trial Court has also taken note of the evidence of DW.1, wherein she has stated that the appellant’s house is admeasuring only 272 sq.yards. On consideration of the recitals of the sale deed and the oral evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the suit schedule property forms part of Ex.A1. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that even though Ex.A1, sale deed, does not contain measurements, still the same cannot be thrown out of the consideration. While there is no quarrel on this proposition, the fact remains that Ex.A1, sale deed, does not contain either extent or measurements. In the absence of these material details, there is no evidence to substantiate the appellant’s plea that the property vested under Ex.A1 is 995 sq.yards. Unless the exact extent which is conveyed under Ex.A1 is indicated, the Courts below are justified in holding that the appellant failed to establish his plea that the respondent has encroached upon the suit schedule property to the extent of 1’ x 54’. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any error of law in the judgments of the Courts below and accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th November, 2011 VGB