THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No. 356 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.261 of 2004 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.261 of 2004 for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and its men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the same on the ground that as per Ex.B1, the plaintiff had encroached the road, situated on the east of the plaint schedule site, by constructing the compound wall without prior permission from the first defendant-Gram Panchayat and there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.1 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. 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 there was an approved plan- Ex.A4, dated 21.02.2004, in favour of the vendor of the appellant for construction of compound wall in the suit schedule property. 4. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on the ground that the first defendant granted permission in favour of the vendor of the appellant for construction of compound wall in the suit schedule property without occupying any government site, but Ex.B1-Advocate Commissioner’s report and plan clearly show that there is an encroachment of Gram Panchayat road by the appellant, at whose favour admittedly there is no permission for construction of compound wall. 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: 23.04.2010 sj