HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No. 684 OF 2008 Friday, the Third Day of December, Two Thousand and Ten Between Rambha Jagadaba Appellant AND Dr. Budha Rama Chandra Rao and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 397 of 1988 on the file of the III Addl. District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. It is stated by the plaintiff that he purchased the suit schedule property under Exs. A-1 and A-2. The defendants disputed the averments made in the plaint stating that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff are different and distinct from that of the suit schedule property. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the property under Ex.A-1 is not the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and that she further failed to prove that her vendor had title to the plaint schedule property. It is also held that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was in possession of the plaint schedule property within the statutory period of twelve years by the date of filing the suit. Observing so, the trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and possession of the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 29.9.1995 in O.S. No. 397 of 1988 on the file of the III Addl. District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, the appellant herein preferred A.S. No. 652 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and the lower appellate court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction and is also not entitled for recovery of the possession. As can be seen from Ex.A-1, the boundaries are not tallying with the suit schedule property apart from the fact that the plaintiff failed to establish her title and possession over the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit relief. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law, warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah December 3, 2010 MAS