HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.197 OF 2004 DATED: 27.06.2011 BETWEEN: The Executive Officer, TTD and another .. Appellants And K.G.Damodaram .. Respondent HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.197 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 19.12.2002 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in A.S.No.32 of 1999 confirming the decree and judgment dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in O.S.No.519 of 1995. 2. I have heard Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and none appears for the respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as ‘the plaintiff and the defendants’. 4. The brief facts necessary for considering the second appeal are as follows: The first defendant-Executive Officer, T.T.D.Devasthanam wanted to widen Singamala Street and for the said purpose, he negotiated with the plaintiff for a site east to west 67 feet and north to south 18 feet, for which the plaintiff demolished a portion of his building i.e. schedule mentioned house and surrendered the site required by the defendants. The defendants agreed to pay some compensation, but they did not pay any compensation and that the plaintiff was insisting upon for payment of compensation. While so, there were heavy rains and the walls of the plaint schedule house in which cracks were developed have collapsed. The plaintiff made an application to the first defendant seeking permission to get his house repaired, and accordingly permission was granted. Thereafter, the plaintiff rendered some repairs to the house and the repairs were objected by the defendants on the ground that new constructions other than those permitted by the defendants were carried on by the plaintiff. It is said that the defendants also sought to demolish the construction made by the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening and thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. 5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. DW.1 was examined on behalf of the defendants and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 6. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record recorded positive findings to the effect that Ex.A.1 is the proceeding issued by TTD on 13.03.1994 granting permission to the plaintiff to effect some repairs to his house. Ex.B.1 is the requisition made by the plaintiff seeking permission to construct walls which have fallen down. Upon perusing the entire evidence on record including Exs.B.2 to B4, the learned trial Court recorded a clear finding that the said documents establish that the defendants are bent upon one away or other to obstruct the plaintiff from conducting the repairs to his house. The learned trial Court also held that the walls which were constructed in fact, were already in existence as per the evidence of PW.1 and the said fact is not disputed by the defendants. 7. The learned trial Court further held that the defendants failed to prove the violations by examining the concerned building Inspector, who inspected the premises and submitted a plan. The plan was also not filed into the Court. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court were confirmed by the learned first appellate Court and ultimately the learned first appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Court independently evaluating the evidence on record. 8. Upon considering the entire material available on record, the following substantial questions of law have been framed basing on which the second appeal is admitted. 1. Whether the Rules 32(1)(b) and Rule 32(2) of the A.P. Grampanchayat Building Rules, are mandatory in nature and hence, any violation of the said rules, entiles demolition of the unauthorized constructions or structures made by the plaintiff. 2. When admittedly new construction in the shape of partition walls in room No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for using them as bath rooms and latrines, were constructed by the plaintiff without prior permission from Gram panchayat attracts the mandatory Rules 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the A.P. Grampanchayat Buildings Rules, 1972. 3. Whether the judgment under appeal, is perverse in not considering in its proper perspective both oral and documentary evidence of the defendants and the admission made by the plaintiff, vitiates the entire decision. 9. If the entire evidence is considered as a whole, it is obvious that there was collapse of walls due to heavy rains and the walls of the plaintiff‘s house had fallen down and virtually the plaintiff applied for permission. The plaintiff under the genuine impression that he was permitted to proceed with the repairs, rendered repairs to his house by constructing walls in the place of old walls wherever necessary. I do not think that any violation is committed by the plaintiff and the repairs effected by him cannot be said to be offending under Rule 32(1)(b) and Rule 32(2) of the A.P. Grampanchayat Building Rules. Further, both the Courts below have concurrently held that no violations have been made by the plaintiff and also that the defendants failed to establish by cogent evidence about such violation committed by the plaintiff while rendering repairs to his house. 10. This Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below unless they are contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. No substantial questions of law arose for consideration in this second appeal and in fact, the second appeal itself is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 27.06.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.197 OF 2004 DATE: 27.06.2011