HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.470 of 2011 Date : 25-11-2011 Between : Yerkala Yadamma and others .. Appellants And Abbagoni Yadaiah and others .. Respondents Counsel for appellants : Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondents : Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao The court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 4-1-2011 in A.S.No.47/2008 on the file of t h e Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Nalgonda, whereby it has reversed the Judgment and decree dated 6-6-2008 in O.S.No.5/2007 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal. I have heard Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. One Yerkala Anjaiah filed O.S.No.5/2007 for perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of Ac.0-03 guntas of land, situated in Sy.No.456/20 (suit property). The case of the plaintiff is that his father was the owner of the suit property and that after his death, he is in possession of the same. As the defendants, who are the appellants in this Second Appoeal, were allegedly interfering with his possession, the plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit. The respondents filed a written statement wherein they have denied the plea of the plaintiff that he continues to be the owner of the suit property. According to them, during his lifetime, Yerkala Mallaiah, the father of the plaintiff, sold his entire land in Sy.No.456 to several persons; that defendant No.1 has purchased to the extent of Ac.0-14 guntas on 19-8-1991 under a simple sale deed from the said Mallaiah and that since the date of purchase, the purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. In support of the plaintiff’s case, he has examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Nimmala Satyanarayana as PW-2. He has filed Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and examined two other witnesses i.e., DW-2 and DW-3. Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked on his side. Having regard to the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property ? 3. Whether the defendants have perfected their rights over the plaint schedule property by way of adverse possession ? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff succeeded in proving his title and possession of the suit property and accordingly the suit for permanent injunction was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the respondents herein filed A.S.No.47/2008. The Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Nalgonda reversed the said Judgment and decree of the trial court. Assailing the said Judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the appellants filed the present Second Appeal. Evidently, the plaintiff died during the pendency of the Appeal and appellant Nos.1 to 4 have come on record as his legal representatives. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the Judgment and decree of the trial court. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendants failed to make out a case of prima facie title as even according to them the sale was made in their favour by the father of the plaintiff through an unregistered document. The learned counsel further stated that the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff shows his possession and that in consideration thereof, the trial court has granted the decree, and the Judgment of the lower appellate court in reversing the well considered Judgment of the trial court, cannot be sustained. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The lower appellate Court while reversing the Judgment of the trial court held that since the relief of injunction being discretionary, a person who claims such a relief should show that he is in lawful possession of the property. The lower appellate Court while observing that no documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff to show that he was in physical possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit, took into consideration the evidence of DW-1 who deposed that he has initially purchased Ac.0-11 guntas in the year 1991 and that thereafter he has again purchased Ac.0-03 guntas which is the subject matter of the suit. DW-1 has filed Ex.B-2, certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98, which showed the name of DW-1 as the purchaser and enjoyer of the suit property. The lower appellate court has considered the fact that even though the suit was filed in the year 2007, the plaintiff has not raised any objection regarding the entries in the pahanies and held that the plaintiff failed to show that he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In my opinion, the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court are based on reappreciation of the evidence on record. Unless such reappreciation of the evidence is found to be perverse, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, will not interfere with such findings and the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court. I do not find any substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal for interference by this Court For the above mentioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order dated 30-4-2011 is vacated and SAMP No.1165/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 25-11-2011 AM