THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.970 of 2011 Dated 02nd September, 2011 Between: Kunreddy Dhanalaxmi and another …Appellants And Kunreddy Jayamma and another …Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Sri M.Madhava Reddy Counsel for respondents: ---- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 18.04.2011, in A.S.No.107 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2009, in O.S.No.34 of 2005, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda was confirmed. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. It is their case that they have jointly purchased the lands admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas in Survey No.160/2 and Acs.4.29 guntas in Survey No.160/3 of Kesamnenipalli Village, Pedda Adisarlapalli Mandal, through registered sale deed No.833/2001, dated 10.04.2002. That the defendants have also purchased land admeasuring Acs.9.18 guntas in Survey No.160 out of the total extent of Acs.18.36 guntas comprised in the said survey number. That the defendants’ lands are on the southern side, while the plaintiffs’ lands are on the northern side. That with an intention to grab Ac.1.02 guntas of land in possession of the plaintiffs, the defendants along with their henchmen tried to damage the sweet lime crop on 01.06.2005, but due to the intervention of the plaintiffs, they could not succeed in their attempts. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendants filed a written statement, wherein they have inter alia averred that they have purchased Acs.4.29 guntas each in Survey No.160/A from Smt.Yeluguru Laxmamma through two registered sale deeds for valuable consideration in the year 2002 and were put in possession by their vendor. That subsequent to purchase of the land by the defendants, the plaintiffs have also purchased the land from the common owner without getting the same properly measured and that the vendors of the plaintiffs were in possession of less extent of land than the extent of land borne by the record and consequently the plaintiffs are also not in possession of part of the land, which is shown in the record. The defendants denied their encroaching into the plaintiffs’ land or their attempt to damage the sweet lime crop. Having regard to the rival pleas, the trial Court has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief? The plaintiffs examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and have also examined PW.3 on their side and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and also examined DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court rejected the plea of the plaintiffs by holding that they failed to prove that they were in possession of Acs.1.02 guntas of land and consequently, they are not entitled to perpetual injunction. The lower appellate Court having re-considered the case and re-appreciated the evidence affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by both these judgments and decrees, the plaintiffs filed the present second appeal. After hearing Sri M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and carefully perusing the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs failed to make out any case of substantial question of law arising in the second appeal. The findings rendered by the trial Court are based on appreciation of evidence. While rejecting the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, the trial Court as accepted the evidence put forth by the defendants in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they are in possession of Acs.1.02 guntas of land as claimed by them and that the defendants were unlawfully trying to interfere with their alleged possession. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the lower appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the trial Court. As both the judgments fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same in this second appeal in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that his clients may be given liberty to file a suit for recovery of possession. Since the issues raised in the present case pertain only to perpetual injunction, it is needless to observe that this order confirming the judgments of the Courts below does not preclude the appellants from availing appropriate remedy in accordance with law for recovery of possession. Subject to the above observations, the second appeal is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd September, 2011 VGB