THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL No.365 OF 2010 ORDER: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 15-12-2009, in A.S.No.99 of 2003 on the file of the learned Family Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 18-09-2002, in O.S.No.7 of 1998 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Respondents herein filed a suit for eviction of the appellant-defendant from the plaint schedule land and for delivery of possession of the same and for past profits of Rs.1000/-. According to the respondents- plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff is the junior paternal uncle of the 2nd plaintiff and the defendant is their agnate. One Ramaiah, grand father of the 2nd plaintiff and father of the 1st plaintiff, acquired the plaint schedule land and other lands and possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and subsequent to his death, plaintiffs succeeded to the plaint schedule land and other lands. The plaint schedule land is comprised of two items covered by old patta No.77 and old Survey No.128/1 and RS.No.128/2 and 128/8P situate in Konda Lakshmipuram village, which was an inam village of Vizianagarm estate. Subsequent to the abolition of Estate, Survey and Settlement Operations were conducted in 1956 and during the said survey an extent of Ac.2.5 cents in old Survey No.128/4 and an extent of Ac.1.02 cents in patta No. 77 were recorded in the name of the 1st plaintiff as owner. In a subsequent survey, Sy.No.121/1 was sub-divided into 128/1 to 7, 8, 8P and 9 to 11 and 12P and the 1st item of the plaint schedule was surveyed in Sy.No.182/2. Thus, the plaint schedule lands are part of old Sy.No.128/1 standing in the name of the 1st plaintiff. Plaintiffs also obtained loan from the Land Mortgage bank, Cheepurupalli by mortgaging the plaint schedule lands along with the other lands in 1973 and discharged the debt. It is alleged that about two years prior to filing the suit, the defendant highhandedly occupied the plaint schedule land as the plaintiffs were not willing to sell the same for nominal price, as demanded by the defendant. Plaintiffs raised a dispute before the elders and the defendant promised to vacate, but ultimately refused to vacate the land. Hence the plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant and for delivery of possession. 4. Defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no concern with the plaint schedule land and he was never in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further contended that he got the suit property for his share and is enjoying the same in his own right and he sold an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in favour of Pratha Bhaskar Srinivas and executed an agreement of sale in favour of Vaddadi Laxman Rao and the extent of item No.2 is only Ac.0.55 cents. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for ejection of the defendant from the plaint schedule lands and for delivery of the same with standing crops? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for past profits @ Rs.1000/- and also subsequent profits as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A24 were marked. Defendant was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses, D.Ws.2 and 3, were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit land within two months and deliver possession to the plaintiffs. It also directed the defendant to pay Rs.1000/- ( rupees one thousand only) to the plaintiffs towards past profits and shall also pay future profits, which have to be determined on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.99 of 2003 before the District Court, Vizianagaram. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the defendant. 8. As seen from the impugned judgments of the Courts below, the oral and documentary evidence on record established the ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule land and also the fact that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. It was further held on evidence that the defendant though claimed to be the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land has not placed any documentary evidence to show either his ownership or possession thereof prior to 1995. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention that he sold part of the land at Pathapodu in favour of one Pratha Bhaskar Srinivas and the said vendee in turn executed an agreement of sale in favour of Vaddadi Lakshman Rao in an extent of Ac.1.28 cents. The Courts below also found that the testimony of D.Ws.2 and 3, who are residents of Kondalaxmipuram, did not in any way support the contention of the defendant as they admitted that they had no personal knowledge of the alleged partition and they are also not aware of the survey numbers, patta numbers and boundaries of the disputed land. 9. According to the defendant, the schedule land fell to the share of his grand father in the family partition between his grand father and father of the 1st plaintiff, but he has not adduced any evidence to show that himself or his ancestors had any title to the suit land. The Courts below also found that the defendant has not established his claim of possession and enjoyment over the suit land prior to 1995. On the other hand, the Courts below found that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, particularly the revenue accounts established the claim of the plaintiffs regarding their title and also possession prior to 1995. As the name of the 1st plaintiff is recorded as pattadar in respect of the schedule land, the trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, held that the plaintiffs were able to establish their title and possession over the schedule land, whereas the defendant failed to show that he had either title or possession prior to 1995. The 1st appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence available on record, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The concurrent findings thus recorded by the Courts below on questions, which are purely of fact, do not call for interference by this Court. In fact, no substantial question of law has arisen from out of the impugned judgments of the Courts below. The questions of law, which are stated in Grounds of Appeal, do not arise for consideration in view of the clear findings recorded by the Courts below on aspects which are pure questions of fact. There are absolutely no merits in this appeal. 10. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th July, 2010 Tsy