THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1394 OF 2011 08.12.2011 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector, E.G.District, Kakinada, And another. …Appellants AND Malakala Venkateswara Rao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1394 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, East Godavari and Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Yeleswaram, are the appellants (hereafter called, defendants). The respondent’s suit being O.S.No.17 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for mandatory injunction for return of a double barrel gun was decreed, while denying the alternative relief to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. He then preferred appeal being A.S.No.162 of 2005. The Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, modiﬁed the Judgment and decree. The appellate Court while dismissing the suit for mandatory injunction directed the appellants/defendants herein to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiﬀ towards the value of the double barrel gun with interest at 6% per annum from the date of deposit of the gun by the respondent with the second defendant. Aggrieved thereby, the present second appeal is filed. The fact of the matter is not seriously disputed. During the Parliamentary Elections held in April, 1996 as directed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Kakinada, the respondent deposited his double barrel gun with licence No.103/3/KDA/DBBL with the second defendant. After the elections, he approached to take return of the gun, in vain. He was informed that the gun was not traced. Therefore, he ﬁled the suit after issuing legal notice on 13.09.1997. In the said suit, the second defendant ﬁled written statement. The case set up was that on 14.04.1996 the extremists of Peoples War Group attacked Yeleswaram P.S., where the gun was deposited and looted 26 weapons including the gun deposited by the respondent. In the written statement, it is alleged that the cost of the gun would not be more than Rs.4,000/- or Rs.5,000/-. During the trial, the plaintiﬀ gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. Defendants did not produce any document but only examined D.W.1 who is none other than the second defendant. During the arguments, the defendants brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent’s gun was traced in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam and that the same would be returned after completion. Giving due weight to this, the trial Court passed the decree directing return of the gun after completing criminal case. As noticed supra, the appellate Court modified the decree. The only submission made by the Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration is that grant of decree for Rs.25,000/- with interest of 6% is erroneous and that the gun would not cost more than Rs.4,000/-. After perusing the Judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court is convinced that no evidence was produced by the defendants to rebut the evidence of the respondent/plaintiﬀ. Be it noted that when the matter was heard by the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, the counsel for respondent ﬁled a memo to the eﬀect that the gun was worth about Rs.25,000/-. Nothing prevented the appellants herein to rebut the same. Therefore, the appellate Court was right in awarding Rs.25,000/- in lieu of return of the gun. The question of law much less substantial question of law would not arise in the second appeal. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2011 Pln