IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA RADESH AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1049 of 2011 Date: 04.11.2011 Between: 1.Mannava Rama Kotaiah (Died) and 3 others. .....Appellants AND The State Bank of India, Mothadaka rep. by its Branch Manager, Mothadaka, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur. ....Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1049 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned VIII- Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, dated 07.11.2008 passed in A.S.No.334 of 2007 whereunder the learned Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 24.09.2007 passed in O.S.No.154 of 2000. The 1st appellant herein is the defendant and he died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4 by order of this Court dated 02.09.2011 in SAMP No.2446 of 2010. Respondent herein is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The suit being O.S.No.154 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff-bank against the defendant was decreed for Rs.45,357/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.37,210/- from the date of suit till the date of realization and the defendant is directed to redeem the mortgaged property within a period of three months from the date of judgment, failing which the bank authorities are at liberty to proceed against the mortgaged property in accordance with law under Order 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred A.S.No.334 of 2007 and the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, by judgment dated 07.11.2008. Against which the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgments. The suit being O.S.No.46 of 1998 filed by the 1st appellant herein against the respondent-bank for recovery of compensation amount of Rs.4,63,490/- for use and occupation of his building by bank officials, was also dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. The trial Court on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit, which was rightly confirmed by the lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of evidence. This Court sitting under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is loath to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. I, therefore, do not find any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, in this appeal. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellants are granted three months time from today to redeem the mortgaged property, failing which the respondent-bank is at liberty to proceed against the mortgaged property as directed by the Courts below. No costs. _________________________ JUISTICE V.ESWARAIAH 04.11.2011 Gsn.