THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.770 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.276 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule house and for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.90 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. The lower appellate court, vide its judgment and decree, dated 22-12-2008, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed this Second Appeal. It is the case of the plaintiff that her father Katakam Venkateswarlu (PW.2) purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A-3-sale deed, dated 05-03-1964 and thereafter, he has gifted the same in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A-1-gift deed, dated 17-04-1997 and from the date of gift, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the suit property was leased out in favour of the 1st defendant on a monthly rent and the 2nd defendant being the husband of the 1st defendant is residing in the suit schedule property and that the 1st defendant paid rents for the months of May and June, 1997 and thereafter, the defendants have not paid any rents. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff and her father (PW.2) are strangers to the suit schedule property and they have neither title nor possession at any time and neither the plaintiff nor her father has any right and title over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a grama kantam poramboke and the 1st defendant encroached the same about 30 years ago and residing therein by raising a thatched shed and paying taxes to the gram panchayat and that the defendants have no other house except the suit schedule house. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding that Ex.A-3 goes to show that the suit schedule property is a grama kantam site, that the Government gave the property in question to one Koka Satyanarayana, who is the vendor of PW.2, by granting patta-Ex.A-4 on 13-11-1963, that a perusal of Ex.A-4 goes to show that the patta was assigned with some conditions, that condition No.9 of Ex.A-4 goes to show that without the written approval of the Revenue Divisional Officer the assigned land cannot be alienated within ten years and if any alienation is made before the expiry of ten years, the Government is at liberty to resume the land from the alleged purchasers, that the alienation made by Koka Satyanarayana in favour of PW.2 within four months from the date of granting patta is in violation of condition No.9 of Ex.A-4, that when the very alienation is deemed as null, void, abinitio and nonest in the eye of law, PW.2 cannot acquire any right or title in pursuance of Ex.A-3, that he is not having any right or title to pass on the same to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 and therefore, the plaintiff is not having any right or title over the plaint schedule property. Further, the lease said to have been given in favour of the 1st defendant has not been established and, therefore, the question of paying rents to the plaintiff does not arise and that the evidence would go to show that the defendants constructed the house in the suit schedule property and residing therein. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.90 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court holding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that she has got right and title over the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff has also failed to prove the lease said to have been given to the defendants on 20-04-1997 on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. I am of the opinion that the trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record, rightly dismissed 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. __________ 29-09-2011 Prv