IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.149 of 2010 Between: Bolloju Nagabhushanam ... APPELLANT AND Vanaparthy Damodar and another ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09-07-2009 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2003 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned the IV Addl. District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 09-06-2003 passed in O.S.No.74 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 1997. He filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of house bearing No.3-244 including open space, total 225 Sq. yards, Nereda village, Chityal mandal, Nalgonda district and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his peaceful possession and enjoyment of house including the open space. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he purchased 225 Sq. yards in the year 1985 from the father of the first defendant for Rs.10,500/- under Ex.A-4 un- registered sale deed. He constructed a house in an extent of 178 Sq. yards leaving an open place to an extent of 47 Sq. yards on the northern side of the house. The Gram Panchayat entered his possession in the records in respect of 178 Sq. yards only. When the second defendant tried to demolish the compound wall, he filed the suit seeking the relief stated supra. 3. The first defendant filed written statement disputing the claim of plaintiff in respect of 47 Sq. yards of open space. 4. The trial court settled the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ? 4. To what relief ? 5. On behalf of the plaintiff six witnesses are examined and four documents were marked, whereas defendants examined three witnesses and marked six documents on their behalf. The leaned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim over an extent of 47 Sq. yards of open site adjacent to the house on northern side. 6. With the above observation, the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed by judgment dated 09-06-2003. The plaintiff assailed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.74 of 1997 by filing an appeal being A.S.No.19 of 2003. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by 09-07-2009. Hence, the Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ plaintiff and perusal the judgment of the trial Court and judgment of lower appellate Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the plaintiff sought for declaration of title in respect of 225 Sq. yards subsequently he restricted his extent to the 47 Sq. yards and this fact both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court missed to note the said factual aspect and thereby erred in dismissing the suit in toto. 9. The defendant did not dispute of the possession of the appellant-plaintiff over 178 Sq. yards of land wherein the appellant- plaintiff constructed a house after obtaining permission from the second respondent. The dispute is only with regard to 47 Sq. yards of open site adjacent to the house on the northern side. 10. I have gone through the grounds of appeal. The appellant seeks to claim the property under Ex.A-4 sale deed. Indisputably Ex.A-4 sale deed is not properly stamped and not registered. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate court has given cogent and convincing reasons for not acting upon Ex.A-4 sale deed. Once Ex.A-4 sale deed is excluded there is no material to show that the appellant/plaintiff has claim over 47 Sq. yards of open site, which is stated to be north of his house. I do not see any substantial questions of law involved in this appeal warranting admission. 10. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J March 05, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.149 of 2010 March 05, 2010