THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Second Appeal No. 252 of 2010 Judgment: The plaintiff’s second appeal is against the judgment in A.S.No. 6 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment in O.S.No. 116 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur whereby the suit was decreed. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The suit is for permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit schedule land in Sy.No. 107/1B2 which was government land was assigned to one Nalluri China Kondaiah vide F.Dis.No. 2861/71 dated 31-12-1961. The said China Kondaiah has no children and the plaintiff (brother’s son of China Kondaiah) is the only male successor in that joint Hindu family. Further the wife of China Kondaiah executed a registered will dated 22-9-1998 in respect of the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has absolute title over the suit schedule property and is in possession of the same is his case. It is also averred that the non-official defendants are powerful persons in the village and they managed the Revenue authorities and got pass books issued in their names and are trying to interfere. Hence the suit. The defendant No.1 filed written statement which was adopted by D2 and D3. D4 to D6 official defendants, remained exparte. The case of D1 is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants were issued pattadar pass books and they are cultivating the lands. On behalf of the plaintiff 3 witnesses were examined and Exs.A2 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants 3 witnesses were examined. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence held that the will dated 22-9-1998 is genuine and the pass books issued to the plaintiff as well as the defendants cannot be acted upon since they were issued without cancelling the original patta dated 31-12-1961 granted in favour of China Kondaiah. It was also held that by virtue of the Will the plaintiff succeeded to the property of China Kondaiah. However, the trial court held “admittedly no documents were filed to prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and as per the evidence of witnesses the suit schedule property is not under cultivation for the last 7 years. Even though no document is filed with regard to the possession, possession follows title. In this case plaintiff is claiming his title under Ex.A3 and the same is proved. Therefore his possession follows title. In this case both the plaintiff and defendants have not filed any documents to prove their possession. Therefore, probabilities will go in favour of the plaintiff to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.” On the above findings, the trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court, while concurring with the very same findings held that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession of the suit schedule property, which is a necessary ingredient for grant of injunction. In view of this finding, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial Court. No question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26th March, 2010. GRR