THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.458 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The respondents herein filed O.S.No.202 of 1995 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, against the appellants for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the property was purchased by the deceased-1st respondent and ever since the sale, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was alleged that the appellants, who claimed rights through the vendor of the 1st respondent, started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent died and respondents 2 and 3 were brought on record as her legal representatives. Similarly, the 1st appellant, who figured as the only defendant, died during the pendency of the suit and the 2nd appellant was brought on record. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 12.08.2003, holding that the appellants have no basis to interfere with the possession. Thereupon, the appellants filed A.S.No.195 of 2007 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur and the same was dismissed on 27.06.2008. Hence, this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The facts pertaining to the very item of property were discussed at some length in S.A.No.444 of 2011. The deceased-1st respondent herein is the third respondent in that second appeal. The manner, in which she had acquired the property, was stated. Incidentally, the same trial Court and the lower appellate Court dealt with the suit for specific performance filed by the appellants therein and others against the 1st respondent herein and others. Once it is held that the appellants or any other persons do not have any rights vis-à-vis the property and that it has been validly acquired by the deceased-1st respondent, there is no way that the appellants could have interfered with the rights of the respondents. Both the Courts below held that the respondents are in rightful possession of the property. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21.07.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.458 of 2011 Date: 21.07.2011 JSU