HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.1046 OF 2009 Dt.29.1.2010 Between: M.Chittaranjan Reddy ..Appellant And Gram Panchayat, Renigunta, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Renigunta, Chittoor District and another. ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.1046 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: Appellant herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No.193 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for declaration of title and mandatory injunction for removal of structures over plaint B schedule property and for future damages for use and occupation of the same and for permanent injunction over plaint A schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he acquired the plaint A schedule property, a vacant site of 0.32 cents out of Ac.3.64 cents in S.No.814/1 of Renigunta village, hamlet of Thukivakam and the plaint B schedule an extent of Ac.2.31 cents in the same survey number abutting the plaint A schedule under a registered will dated 1.5.1970 executed by Agarala Venkatamma. Defendants are the Gram Panchayat, Renigunta represented by its Sarpanch and Executive Officer. It is stated that the defendants encroached upon B schedule property in 1985 and 1986 and constructed a small Mangalore-tiled structure and a small R.C.C slab structure in spite of protest and objection of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the Gram Panchayat office was constructed in the land in S.No.813/1- A in 1959 itself and constructed a compound wall, latrine, siren stand etc., in S.No.814/1 in the year 1968-69 itself under the orders of the Collector who assigned an extent of 0.73 cents and 0.35 cents in the said survey numbers. The plaintiff never entered into the witness box and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-22 were marked. On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-19 were marked. The report of the advocate commissioner was marked as Ex. C-1. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence recorded the following findings: “Unless it is shown that the defendants’ Panchayat is claiming possession in the extent of Ac.2.64 cents covered by Ex.A-7 only and not in the remaining extent of Ac.1.00 belong to the others, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be decreed. The above particulars are lacking in this case. Unless the entire land of Ac.3.64 cents in S.No.814/1 is located and Ac.2.64 cents out of Ac.3.64 cents in S.No.814/1 is separately demarcated on ground, it is not possible to hold that the land in S.No.814/1 abutting S.No.813/1A as shown in the Commissioner’s plan is in Ac.1.00 or in Ac.2.64 cents, out of Ac.3.64 cents in S.No.814/1 and that it belongs to the plaintiff, as per Ex.A-7. The boundaries for the land bequeathed to the plaintiff are not mentioned in Ex.A-7. In the absence of boundaries for the land bequeathed to the plaintiff out of Ac.3.64 cents under Ex.A-7, the land bequeathed to the plaintiff cannot be identified from the plan of the Commissioner and as such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the property. That the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules property is the property covered by Ex.A-7, is not proved. Since it is held that the plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the property and he failed to prove that the plaint schedules property is in an extent of Ac.2.64 cents, out of Ac.3.64 cents covered by Ex.A-7, all the issues are to be answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. So, all issues 1 to 6 are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. “ Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 8.3.2001. As against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.41 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaint A and B schedule properties are the properties covered by Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-7 does not cover the entire extent of Ac.3.64 cents covered by Survey No.814/1. The plaintiff did not explain regarding the remaining extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.813/1A and one Eswara Reddy, father of P.W.1 already sold some extent of the land covered by Survey No.814/1 under the original of Exs.B-15 and B-16. The entries in the revenue records on which the plaintiff relied do not disclose that the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The lower appellate court accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment, dated 2.4.2009 confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the lower appellate court, the present second appeal has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that both the courts below on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence recorded the aforesaid findings. The said findings cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the facts of the case. The lower appellate court rightly observed that the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaint A and B schedule properties are the properties covered by Ex.A-7. Therefore, I do not see any question of law muchless substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 29.1.2010 kpr