THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.1300 of 2008 Date: 13.08.2010 Between: Paidimarri Venkateswarlu … Appellant and Smt. Bhavari Devi … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.1300 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2007, passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree, dated 25.07.2005, in O.S.No.513 of 1999, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction from raising any structures into the open space in future. 3. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant herein. 4. It appears that both the plaintiff and defendant made structures adjacent to each other without leaving any space in between their houses. When it comes to the construction on the first floor, allegedly there was an agreement between the parties to leave 2 feet space. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that the plaintiff had constructed in the space belonging to the defendant and contrary to the agreement to the effect that space by each party should be left unconstructed. 5. In this regard, the report of the Commissioner is contra to the case of the defendant. It further appears that the evidence of DW.3, the mason who constructed the building of the defendant, is also contrary to the case of the defendant, who deposed that the defendant constructed the house upto boundaries without leaving any vacant space on any side. 6. The Courts below, having gone into the merits of the case and after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and also after framing appropriate issues, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff only. Hence the second appeal. 7. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the Courts below. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are totally fact based. Even if there is any mis-appreciation of facts, this Court, in normal course, cannot go into those disputed questions of fact, unless and until such disputed questions of fact would lead or amount to any substantial question of law. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. 8. For the foregoing, there is no question of law, much less substantial, warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. 9. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. However, it is made clear that since the appellant-defendant is claiming title over the disputed space, it is always open for him to initiate appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate relief as permissible under law. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.1300 of 2008 13.08.2010 (Msr)