THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL No.575 OF 2011 DATED:05.08.2011 Between: Thatiparthi Pedda Linga Reddy (Died) & 5 others. …Appellants-plaintiffs And Origanti @ Nagireddy Raja Reddy & 7 others. …Respondents-Defendants JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment, dated 12.08.2010, in A.S.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellants herein-plaintiffs, was dismissed, confirming the judgment, dated 13.06.2008, in O.S.No.796 of 1993 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, wherein the suit filed by the appellants herein for permanent injunction, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of an extent of 3.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.495 situate in Bathikepalli village. According to the plaintiff, he was the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule land, which is part of 10.06 guntas. Defendants are the owners of the adjacent land in Sy.No.499 situate to the East of the said land. In the plaint, averment is made by the plaintiff that in his absence from the village, the defendants have encroached upon the suit land by removing the boundary stones and began to cultivate the same. He made an application to the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, who conducted a survey and demarcated the schedule land on 23.12.1992 by conducting panchanama in the presence of elders and fixed boundary stones. Even then, defendants did not stop their attempts. 4. 1st respondent herein-1st defendant filed written statement denying the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the suit land and contending that the paternal grand father of the defendants by name Oruganti Narsaiah was the original owner and possessor and he was the pattedar of the land as per the sethwar for the Fasli 1356. He died leaving behind his mother as the only legal heir and after the death of their mother, defendants succeeded to the schedule land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 1st defendant alleged that the father of the plaintiff being a police patel managed the patwari of the village and got his name recorded as pattedar. He would further contend that on coming to know of it, he made representation to the District Collector, Karimnagar, for correction of the entries in the revenue records and thereafter plaintiff bearing grudge filed the suit and the defendants further contend that the revenue authorities made enquiry and confirmed the ownership and possession of the defendants over the suit land. The trial Court framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief. 5. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked and D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that admittedly the defendant was in possession of the suit land by the date of the suit and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2008. By the impugned order, dated 12.08.2010, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the findings of the trial Court. 7. It is to be noted that in the pleadings of both sides, defendants have been specifically disputing the plaintiff’s claim of title and possession over the suit land. Still, plaintiff has not chosen to file the suit for declaration of his title. In fact, in the plaint itself a specific averment is made to the effect that during the absence of the plaintiff from the village, defendants have encroached upon the suit land and started cultivating the same. Thus, even according to the plaintiff, by the date of filing of the suit, defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, but still plaintiff has not chosen to file any suit for recovery of possession. Plaintiff filed suit for mere injunction though according to him defendants have encroached upon the suit land, even by the date of filing of the suit. The first appellate Court therefore held that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. Even otherwise, on merits also, it was found on evidence that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was in possession of the suit land and on the other hand, the defendants’ evidence would clearly establish that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. 8. The Courts below also found that though the plaintiff alleged that on his application, survey was conducted and the boundary was demarcated and stones were fixed by conducting panchanama, plaintiff has failed to establish the same by adducing necessary evidence. 9. In BHOLARAM V. AMIRCHAND[1] a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated the statement of law as under: “The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the Courts below are perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the Courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law. 10. I n THIAGARAJAN V. SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B.KOIL[2], the apex Court held that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact. The court observed that: “to say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions held that where findings of fact by the lower appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible”. 11. The apex Court again reminded the High Courts in COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS V. P.SHANMUGAMA[3] that the High Court has no jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with the finding of facts. 12. The apex Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA V. MOHD.KUNHI[4] has reiterated the same principle that the High Court is not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. The pex Court observed that, in doing so, the High Court has gone beyond the scope of Section100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. In MADHAVAN NAIR V. BHASKAR PILLAI[5], the apex Court observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. The apex Court observed that it is well settled that even if the first appellate Court commits an error in recording a finding of fact, that itself will not be a ground for the High Court to upset the same. 14. In HARJEET SINGH V.AMRIK SINGH[6], the apex Court with anguish has observed that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the appellate Court. 15. In the above case, the findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court regarding readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract was set aside by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The Apex Court, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. 16. I n H.P.PYAREJAN V. DASAPPA[7], the Apex Court observed as follows: “it suffers from the vice of exercise of jurisdiction which did not vest in the High Court. Under Section 100 CPC (as amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below is confined to hearing of substantial questions of law. Interference with the finding of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it invokes re-appreciation of evidence.” 17. Under those circumstances, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the defendants were found to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and therefore plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction, does not call for any interference in the Second Appeal. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. 18. In the circumstances, the impugned judgments of the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. 19. In the result, Second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th August, 2011. Tsy [1] (1981) 2 SCC 414 [2] (2004) 5 SCC 762 [3] (2005) 9 SCC 232 [4] (2005) 10 SCC 139 [5] (2005) 10 SCC 553 [6] (2005) 12 SCC 270 [7] (2006) 2 SCC 496