The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Second Appeal No.560 of 1994 Order: This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 01-07-1994, in A.S.No.46 of 1986, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 18-09-1986, in O.S.No.390 of 1981, on the file of the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bapatla. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, and Sri M.Y.K.Rayudu, learned Counsel for the defendants. The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed the abovesaid suit for perpetual injunction on the basis of an agreement of sale, purported to have been executed on 04-02-1956. Having paid a part of consideration and put in possession thereof on 04-02-1956 itself, since the defendants were interfering with their possession, the plaintiffs sought for injunction. The said suit was inter alia contested by the defendants herein setting forth their title and possession over the suit schedule property in pursuance of Ex.B.4-registered sale deed, dated 12-11-1973, executed by the same vendors, who alleged to have entered into the agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. The trial Court, after framing the necessary issues, conducted enquiry where the plaintiffs examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 and X.1 and the defendants examined DWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.B.1 and 2. The trial Court, having considered the said evidence, both oral and documentary, did not find favour with the plaintiffs case and held that they failed to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the first appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs and the lower appellate Court, once again after appreciation of the evidence available on record, agreed with the findings arrived by the trial Court and held that the documents, which were sought to be relied on by the plaintiffs, do not pertain to the suit schedule property and that a suspicion arises as to the execution of Ex.A.1 and accordingly, dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned Counsel for the parties in detail and also on perusal of the entire material available on record, it is quite clear that the suit being one of perpetual injunction simplicitor, the questions as to the genuineness of the documents, being questions of fact, cannot possibly be gone into in this Second Appeal. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs failed to prove any valid title and possession in their favour as found by both the Courts below, whereas the defendants proved their title and possession thereof on the basis of Ex.B.4- registered sale deed, dated 12- 11-1973. In view of such concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by both the Courts below, this Court cannot go into the merits once again and re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. Such concurrent findings of fact is binding on this Court. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in this Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the plaintiffs are at liberty to avail any other remedy available to them under the law. _______________ B.Prakash Rao, J Date: 23-07-2010 lur