THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1068 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.676 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed A.S.No.370 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate court, vide its judgment and decree, dated 14-07-2010, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed the present Second Appeal. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property from one Cherukuri Padmavathi vide registered sale deed, dated 22- 03-2002, who in turn derived title by means of a Will, dated 13-08-1987. He also purchased plaint ‘B’ schedule property from one Mannam Saraswathi and that Cherukuri Padmavathi and Mannam Saraswathi are the daughters and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of one Alapati Rama Kotaiah and from the date of purchase, he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the defendants that the suit for mere perpetual injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration, since there is a title dispute. The alleged will, dated 13-08-1987, is a forged document and it is created just before the sale deeds brought into existence on 22-03-2002 by the plaintiff, Cherukuri Padmavathi and Mannam Saraswathi, who grabbed the suit schedule property and they have no right or title over the suit schedule property. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff has established the title of his vendors and that he has also established his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, without seeking the relief of declaration, the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction and accordingly, decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed A.S.No.370 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the suit for mere perpetual injunction, without seeking the relief of declaration, is maintainable, as the plaintiff has established his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having derived title from his vendors, that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and claiming such possession by the defendants over the property amounts to infringement or invasion of the legal right of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. I am of the opinion that the trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record, rightly decreed the suit with costs. Further, the appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 30-09-2011 Prv