THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1195 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit filed by them in O.S.No.119 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 26-08-1996, against which, the appeal filed by the appellants in A.S.No.176 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, was also dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 11-06-2002, against which, the present Second Appeal is filed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff’s husband, Avadanam Subrahmanyam, had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, after the death of Pasupuleti Lakshmanna, who was the original owner of the said property. It is further stated that patta had been transferred in favour of the husband of the 1st plaintiff under Ex.A-1 and, therefore, the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over the suit schedule property as per Ex.A-1-patta transfer, Exs.A-2 and A-3-kist receipts and Ex.A-4-ryotwari pass book and, therefore, they are entitled for permanent injunction. It is the case of the defendants that after the death of Pasupuleti Lakshmanna, the husband of the 2nd defendant, Pullaguru Papanna, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property and his possession was also entered in 0 (1) account and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. The trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and as such, they are not entitled for permanent injunction. I have perused the material available on record. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Ex.A-1 patta transfer, Exs.A-2 and A-3-kist receipts and Ex.A-4- tyotwari passbook proved that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But, except filing the said documents, the plaintiffs have not filed any correspondence or evidence to show as to how the name of the husband of the 1st plaintiff was entered in the revenue records, after the death of the original owner. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that after the death of the original owner Pasupuleti Lakshmanna, who died as a bachelor, the husband of the 2nd defendant had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land and the possession of the defendants was also proved. Therefore, the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, having held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession as on the date of filing of the suit, dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court, on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I am of the opinion that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-08-2010 Prv