IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.296 of 2010 Between: Maddela Yerramma and 6 others ..... APPELLANTS AND Cheekatipalli Yerrappa .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.296 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff. Originally the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction in O.S.3/1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler against Golukonda Gangoji. During pendency of the suit, the said Golukonda Gangoji died and her legal heirs were brought on record as Defendant Nos.2 to 8. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 10.06.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed appeal in A.S.45/2008 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the said appeal while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, against which the present second appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the courts below erroneously dismissed the suit without recording a clear finding as to whether the plaintiff was actually found in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is stated that Exs.B1 to B3 establish the possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property and the agreement of sale and the execution of sale deed by the 1st defendant in favour of Gangi Reddy vide Ex.A1 and further sale by Gangireddy in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.A4 are not genuine and the said documents are created and fabricated. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the grounds raised in this second appeal. A specific issue was framed by the trial Court with regard to forgery and fabrication of the agreement of sale dated 04.02.1967 and Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 19.08.1967. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.01½ cents admittedly belongs to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale and thereafter executed Ex.A1 registered sale deed in favour of Gangi Reddy, and the said Gangi Reddy transferred the said property in his favour vide Ex.A4 sale deed. The suit was filed on 24.03.1998 and thereafter only, the defendants obtained Exs.B1 to B4, i.e. three months after filing of the suit, mutating the names of the defendant Nos.5, 7 and wife of 4th defendant and therefore the said possession certificates are rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. Both the Courts below held that admittedly Ex.A1 property was existing within the specific boundaries and the vendor of the plaintiff in order to construct a building, submitted plans to the Gram Panchayat and the same were approved by the Gram Panchayat after passing appropriate resolutions and issued Exs.A2 and A3, and accordingly a house was constructed therein and the property tax was also being paid by the vendor of the plaintiff. After purchasing the property, the plaintiff was entered into possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not established his possession as on the date of filing of the suit. In my opinion both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact with regard to possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit based on the relevant evidence and therefore, I do not find that there are any merits to interfere with the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, no question of law, much less substantial question of law that arise for consideration in the present second appeal. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 09.04.2010 Dsr