THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2004. JUDGEMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dt. 12.9.2003 in A.S.No. 4 of 2000 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur reversing the judgement and decree dt. 17.1.2000 in O.S.No. 13 of 1988 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Punganur. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as the plaintiffs and the defendants. Brief facts of the case are as under: According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to one Rani Parvathammanni of Punganur Zamindar’s family and during her lifetime she executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her grandsons on 22.7.1995. After her death, her two grandsons namely Raja Udaya Shankar Royal and Raja Somasankara Chikka Royal sold the suit property along with other properties to R.Manemma, S.Prameelamma, G.Reddeppa and R. Krishnamoorthy and that the above said four persons sold the suit property to them under four different sale deeds on 29.11.1997. The defendants being the residents of the same village are aware of the above mentioned facts and as the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property against the wishes of the defendants, they tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore they filed the suit for permanent injunction. In the written statement, the defendants contended that the suit property was never settled by Rani Parvathammanni under the alleged registered settlement deed dt. 22.7.1955. According to them, the said Rani Parvathammanni had no right to settle the suit property in favour of her grandsons and that the names of her grandsons are not found in the revenue records. It was further contended that the grandsons of Rani Parvathammanni had no right to sell away the suit property in favour of R.Manemma, S.Prameelamma, G.Reddeppa and R.Krishnamoorthy as they have not acquired any title under the settlement deed dt. 22.7.1955. It is also their contention that the sale deeds dt. 29.11.1997 under which the plaintiffs said to have acquired title to the suit property are all nominal and created. It is the version of the defendants that somehow to evict the defendants from the suit property, the plaintiffs have created false and fictitious documents and filed the suit. It is asserted that they along with some other villagers of Pathur Harijanawada have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and constructed houses and they have been living therein from times immemorial. The specific case of the defendants is that their ancestors and some other residents of the village occupied the suit land in S.Nos. 78/3 and adjoining S.Nos. 78/2 and 78/4 and constructed residential houses therein and that the villagers also constructed temple of Nalla Gangamma and performing Jathara every year since long time. The defendants also contended that they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. Further case of the defendants is that after the abolition of Punganur Zamindar Estate under the Estates Abolition Act, the property vested in the Government and that during the course of survey operations, the suit property and other S.Nos. 78/2 and 78/4 of Harijanwada were wrongly classified as Ryoty lands of Zamindars. According to the defendants, the suit property and the land in the above survey numbers is Gramakantam and a part of Harijanawada. It is also stated that there are tamarind trees existed in the suit land and the defendants and other villagers have also applied for grant of house pattas. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with all false allegations and documents and therefore prayed to dismiss the same. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. ii) Whether the four sale deeds dt. 29.11.1997 are true. iii) Whether the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. iv) Whether the mere suit for injunction is maintainable. Before the trial court, Pws 1 to 6 were examined and Exs:A.1 to A.30 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. Dws 1 to 5 were examined and Exs:B.1 to B.27 were marked on behalf of the defendants. Exs:C.1 to C.7 were marked by the Court. The learned trial court relying on Exs:A.1 to A.11, A.16 to A.19, A.21, A.22, A.26 to A.29 held that the suit property was conveyed to the plaintiffs under registered sale deeds dt. 29.11.1997 and they are in possession of the suit property. The learned trial court, though noticed the evidence of existence of cow dung pits, tamarind trees and two temples, did not give much credence to the evidence forthcoming on those aspects. The trial court also did not consider Exs:B.3 to B.11 the demand notices issued to the defendants. The learned trial court also failed to consider the evidence of Dw.4 in proper perspective and the documents Exs: C.1 to C.5 submitted by him. Ultimately, the trial court having arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land decreed the same. The lower appellate court mainly considered the aspect of possession over the suit land as on the date of suit, which is crucial to determine the suit for injunction. The learned 1st Appellate Court took into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs purchased the suit land on the same date under different sale deeds on 29.11.1997. The learned 1st Appellate Court further took into consideration the admissions made by Pws 1 to 6 in their cross examination about the existence of tamarind trees on the suit land, houses belonging to the defendants, existence of temples and manure pits. The evidence of Dw.5 who was the Court Commissioner and his report also reveals about the existence of houses, cow-dung pits and tamarind tress in the suit land. The learned 1st Appellate Court also expressed the view that the plaintiffs have suppressed the fact of existence of houses, cow-dung pits and tamarind trees belonging to the defendants and others and held that they are guilty of suppression of facts and therefore they are not entitled for the relief of injunction. The learned 1st Appellate Court also noticed the fact that except the settlement deed executed by Rani Parvathammanni and subsequent sale deeds executed by her grandsons, absolutely there is no evidence indicating the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs before the property passed on to them under the registered sale deeds dt. 29.11.1997. The learned 1st Appellate Court also considered the voters’ list of Chembakur Grampanchayat for the year 1993 and in the said voters’ list Ex:B.2 the names of the defendants and some other villagers are mentioned. The defendants also filed house tax demand notices which are marked as ExB.1 to B.10 and they relate to the period prior to the filing of the suit and that one of the defendants issued legal notice to the plaintiffs and also to the MRO concerned alleging manipulation of record and the plaintiffs are trying to occupy the suit land forcibly. Ex:B.21 is the office copy of legal notice and Exs:B.22 to B.26 are the acknowledgements. The defendants have also objected execution of registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and the objection petition is marked as Ex:B.27. As per the report of the Commissioner there are huts of different sizes in the suit land belonging to the defendants and some other villagers and also existence of a temple. The 1st Appellate Court concluded from the evidence adduced by the defendants as well as the report of the Commissioner that the suit property is full of trees and there are thrashing floors and these facts have been admitted by Pws 1 to 4 in their cross examination. In view of the specific contention raised by the defendants disputing the title of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title as rightly observed by the 1st Appellate Court, the burden is on the plaintiffs to seek the relief of declaration of title. It is specifically contended that by virtue of the Estates Abolition Act, the property which belongs to Punganur Zamindar vested with the Government, the plaintiffs have to show as to how Parvathammanni and her grand sons have right to dispose of the suit property. Further, the evidence forthcoming in this case including the admissions made by the plaintiffs, clearly indicate that there are houses belonging to the defendants, there are several trees, manure pits and thrashing floors and also some temples in existence. Thus from the evidence, it is clearly established that the defendants are in actual possession of the property and that the plaintiffs have suppressed the fact of existence of houses, manure pits, thrashing floors and temple and filed the suit for bare injunction claiming that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The evidence on record falsifies their version and it clearly indicates that the defendants have been in physical possession of the property. The plaintiffs therefore for not being in possession of the property as on the date of suit and also due to their conduct in suppressing the material facts as rightly held by the 1st Appellate Court, are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. The following substantial questions of law have been framed at the time of admitting the second appeal by this Court: i) What is the value of the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued under the provisions of the Records of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act. ii) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act have been complied with. iii) Whether Exs:A.1, A.17, A18 to A.30 coupled with other evidence viz., Commissioner’s report Ex:X.4 establish the plaintiffs’ case. In fact the substantial questions of law which are referred to above framed at the time admitting the second appeal are not substantial questions of law, which require consideration in the 2nd appeal. The learned Appellate Court rendered its decision basing on the findings of fact. The findings of fact are the result of proper appreciation of evidence and adequate reasoning. The findings of fact recorded by the 1st Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence and material on record. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law can be said to have been involved in this second appeal. The second appeal is therefore not maintainable and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 23.6.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2004. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 23.06.2011.