HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 466 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 18.02.2011 passed in A.S.No. 156 of 2010 on the file of VI Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2010 passed in O.S.No. 598 of 2009 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 598 of 2009. She filed O.S seeking the relief of permanent injunction. That suit was dismissed stating that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief by way of equity/injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant- plaintiff filed A.S.No. 156 of 2010 and the same was dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is field. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the courts below committed a serious irregularity in dismissing the suit for perpetual injunction contrary to the evidence on record and it committed a serious irregularity in coming to conclusion that the suit schedule land is an assigned land without any documentary evidence to show that the suit schedule land was a government land and the same was assigned to the respondent/defendant. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in RAME GOWDA (D) BY L.Rs., APPELLNAT VS. M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (D) BY L.Rs AND ANOTHER[1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that the appellant is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in RAME GOWDA (D) BY L.Rs., APPELLNAT VS. M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (D) BY L.Rs AND ANOTHER (supra), relied on by the appellant at paragraph 11 held as under: “In the present case the Court has found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The Trial Court therefore left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession, protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. The trial Court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit. It is still open to the defendant-appellant to file a suit based on his title against the plaintiff- respondent and evict the latter on the former establishing his better right to possess the property.” It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, unless the finding is perverse and based on no material. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the appellant reported in RAME GOWDA (D) BY L.Rs., APPELLNAT VS. M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (D) BY L.Rs AND ANOTHER (supra), is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, this Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 30.04.2011 KA [1] AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 4609