IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL NO.524 OF 1999 Between : The Mandal Revenue Officer, and others. ... PETITIONERS AND Nookala Sudheer Reddy and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL NO.524 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: Defendants in O.S.No.104 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Mahabubnagar, have filed this second appeal aggrieved by the decree passed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.8 of 1996, dated 31.01.1997. 2. The suit O.S.No.104 of 1985 was filed by the respondents herein for declaration that they are the rightful owners and possessors of the two mango trees and for consequential injunction from interfering with taking the usufructs as well as wood from the said mango trees. 3. The said suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that the said trees were standing on the northern side of the Tank Bund and asserted excessive right to the said trees. Respondents herein lead oral and documentary evidence to establish the fact that apart from the two trees there are six mango trees belonging to the plaintiffs, and they are enjoying the usufructs of the same. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Court decreed the same by holding that the appellants were unable to produce any document to show that the said trees were in exclusive possession of the Revenue Department or the Irrigation Department at any time. The appellants also failed to establish that the said trees were auctioned at any time by the State. 4. The claim of the appellants based on Ex.B.3 surveyor report, dated 04.10.1985, and Ex.B.4, corresponding sketch, were rejected by the lower appellate Court on the ground that, firstly; the surveyor was not examined, and secondly; the survey report would contradict the official records and plans of the department. The lower appellate Court, allowed the appeal after noticing that one of the tree is already became old and had fallen down. 5. Both the counsel now submit that the remaining trees have fallen down on account of its old age and, as such, the mango trees itself would not exist on the site. 6. The subject matter of the suit has become infructuous, as both the mango trees are not existing on the site, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal. 7. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J SEPTEMBER, 08, 2010 YVL