THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The suit filed by the first respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) being O.S.No.443 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, for declaration and recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule vacant site with a house thereon bearing door No.62-12-19 of Plot No.13, Siddartha Nagar, Rajahmundry, was decreed on 02.01.2010. The appellant (hereafter second defendant) went in appeal to the Family Court- cum-Court of Additional district Judge, Rajahmundry. The said appeal being A.S.No.22 of 2010 was dismissed on 01.08.2011, aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The plaintiff set up the case that the suit schedule property was assigned by Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, to his mother, Smt.Bheri Maridamma under Ex.X1 dated 25.01.1969; she was enjoying possession uninterruptedly till 1973; she approached the husband of the first defendant-who was managing M/s. Raja Narendra Society, which gave loans to the persons belonging to weaker sections on house pattas-for the purpose of obtaining a loan of Rs.500/- by keeping the original patta with the Society but loan was not granted. It was further alleged that after the death of the husband of the first defendant, the patta was not returned. Then she wanted to construct a house, she found the second defendant trespassed the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also alleged that on 23.12.1998, the mother executed Will-Ex.A1 bequeathing the suit schedule property. The suit was opposed by the second defendant alone. He set up the Will dated 14.11.1992 (Ex.B2) to claim the property. The trial Court framed eight appropriate issues. During the trial, the plaintiff examined four witnesses and marked 13 documents. The defendant examined two witnesses and marked five documents. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court believed Ex.A1-Will executed by mother of the plaintiff and rejected the Will-Ex.B2 set up by the second defendant, as it was not proved in accordance with law. On the question of grant of patta by the Tahsildar in favour of Maridamma relying on Ex.X1, the finding was recorded in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed accordingly against which the unsuccessful second defendant filed A.S.No.22 of 2010. The appellate Court reconsidered the evidence and affirmed the judgment of the lower Court. The counsel for the appellant-second defendant submits that even if the assignment in favour of Maridamma is true, in view of Section 3 (5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, the second defendant being landless poor person is entitled to continue in possession and therefore, decree passed is unsustainable. The submission cannot be accepted. The entire plea of the appellant was that mother of the plaintiff bequeathed the suit schedule property in his favour. Having taken such a plea, the second defendant cannot be permitted to take a different plea as seen from the judgment of the appellate Court. The appellant argued that the suit was rejected having regard to the powers of the revenue authority to proceed under the Act to evict the trespassers of the assigned land. This argument is made before this Court to deny the jurisdiction of the civil Court. It is well settled that the question of jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest point of time and unless and until it is shown that the judgment is nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction, the decree passed by the trial Court, as affirmed by the appellate Court, cannot be interfered. The Second Appeal does not involve any question of law and is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23rd December 2011 RRB