IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Second Appeal No.675 of 2010 Between: Adepu Venkatesham … Appellant And: Adepu Mallesham & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL No.675 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 22.01.2010 in AS No.8 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalle, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellant herein-plaintiff was allowed in part, modifying the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 in OS No.47 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sultanabad. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed suit against the respondents for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property of 37 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.11/A situated in Sultanpur village. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner and has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land ever since his purchase under registered sale deed dated 07.09.1998 in respect of an extent of 23¾ guntas and another extent of 14 guntas under simple sale deed dated 08.08.1996, subsequently registered on 28.09.2002 from the original pattedar Adepu Rajesham, who is the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants having no right, title over the suit property, started interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. 4. The defendants filed written statement alleging that the plaintiff obtained registered sale deed from A.Rajesam, who is adoptive father of first defendant by exercising coercion and undue influence and subsequently, fabricated the revenue records. The defendants further alleged that there was earlier litigation between the first defendant and his adoptive father in OS No.25 of 1997, which ended in compromise between them in Lok Adalath on 22.11.1997, wherein the first defendant got 13 1/3 guntas of land and therefore, Rajesam could not have conveyed the share of first defendant also. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for perpetual injunction as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 6. During the trial, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked on behalf of the defendants. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not shown to be in lawful possession of 13 1/3 guntas, 5¼ guntas at any time, which exclusively belong to A.Rajesam and his legal heirs. The trial Court further held that the land of 14 guntas claimed by the plaintiff as having purchased under Ex.A.3 was the exclusive property of first defendant, who got the same for his share under the compromise decree in OS No.25 of 1997 and therefore, the vendor of the plaintiff had no right to convey the same in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the appeal AS No.8 of 2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. By impugned judgment, dated 22.01.2010, the said appeal was allowed in part, modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the effect that the suit is partly decreed, granting permanent injunction in respect of an extent of 23¾ guntas of land covered by Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 07.09.1998 and the rest of the suit claim in respect of 13 1/3 guntas in Sy.No.11/A is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal. 7. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has not raised any question of law, muchless substantial question of law that arises for consideration. On 28.07.2011, learned counsel for the appellant sought time for filing additional grounds showing substantial question of law, but no such additional grounds are filed. 8. As seen from the impugned judgment of the first appellate court, the following points were considered for determination of the appeal. 1. Whether the registered sale deeds in Exs.A.2 and A3 of the plaintiff in respect of the two bits of suit schedule lands are binding on the defendants or not? 2. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether the decree in OS No.25 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sulthanabad is binding on the plaintiff or not? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 9. On points 1 and 3, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the plaintiff has no right, title or possession over land covered by Ex.A.3 sale deed covering 14 guntas of land and the said sale deed is not binding on the defendants and the vendor under Ex.A.3 had no right, title to convey the same to the plaintiff. Insofar as the other land covered by Ex.A.2 sale deed is concerned, it was held that the first defendant has not disputed about the same and therefore, it is binding on the defendants. Ex.B.6 is the compromise decree in OS No.25 of 1997, which also shows that the vendor of the plaintiff had title and possession in respect of land of 23¾ guntas under Ex.A.2, was therefore upheld. However, the plaintiff’s vendor had no right to convey the other extent of 14 guntas, as the same has not fallen to the share of first defendant under the compromise decree Ex.B.6, it was rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction in respect of the said extent. The first appellate Court has on proper reaprisal of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff had neither valid title to nor possession of 14 guntas covered by Ex.A.3 sale deed and therefore, he is not entitled for permanent injunction regarding the same. In respect of the remaining extent of 23¾ guntas covered by Ex.A.2 sale deed, as the plaintiff was found to be having valid title and also possession and enjoyment thereof, permanent injunction was granted to that extent. 10. The question as to what extent the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment that would enable him to claim the relief of injunction for protection of his possession is purely question of fact to be decided on the evidence available on record. The finding on the said question of fact, as recorded by the first appellate court, on reappraisal of the evidence as stated above, does not call for any interference in the second appeal. 11. It is not a case where the first appellate court has recorded findings based on no evidence or taking into consideration of the evidence, which is inadmissible or left out of consideration of any evidence, which is relevant. The appellant has not raised any question of law that in fact arises for consideration from out of the findings recorded by the first appellate court on question of facts or otherwise. 12. In THIAGARAJAN V. SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B.KOIL[1], 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. It was held that 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. The Apex Court further observed that 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. The Apex Court again reminded the High Courts in COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS V. P.SHANMUGAMA[2] that the High Court has no jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with the finding of facts. 13. In HARJEET SINGH V.AMRIK SINGH[3], the Apex Court with anguish has mentioned that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the appellate Court. 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. 14. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions and no question of law, muchless substantial question of law having arisen in the present case and the findings on question of fact recorded by the appellate court, not warranting any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 CPC, it is held that there are no merits in the second appeal. 15. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.09.2011 bss [1] (2004) 5 SCC 762 [2] (2005) 9 SCC 232 [3] (2005) 12 SCC 270