THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1452 OF 2011 15.12.2011 Between: Magapu Narayana Rao …Appellant AND Village Secretariat, Thimmapuram, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1452 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the instant appeal against the concurrent Judgment dated 28.06.2011 in A.S.No.116 of 2010 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil judge, Kakinada, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2009 in O.S.No.1548 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The appellant instituted the suit for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction alleging that the suit schedule property admeasuring 25 square yards with door No.4-99/A situated in Thimmapuram Village, East Godavari District, was gifted to his wife (pasupu kunkuma) orally by his father-in-law; the appellant was running a pan shop; and the father- in-law executed gift deed on 04.03.1985 bequeathing said property to the plaintiff and the Gram Panchayat is claiming the land forming part of women’s public latrine. The Gram Panchayat represented by Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch opposed the suit. They alleged that the plaintiff had no title over the property and that it forms part of the women’s public latrine maintained by the Gram Panchayat. The trial Court framed appropriate issues and during the trial, the plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked seven documents. The defendant did not examine any witnesses nor marked any document. After considering the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove title or that he is in lawful possession and therefore, the relief of declaration cannot be given. The finding was confirmed by the appellate Court. The counsel for appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v M.Varadappa Naidu [1] and would submit that even if the plaintiff is not able to prove his title, he is entitled to protect his possession and grant of injunction is permissible. This Court has perused the Judgment of the Courts below. The plaintiff’s specific case was that he got the property under a Will executed by his father-in-law Ex.A.1, but as found by the Courts below, the appellant fails to prove oral gift allegedly executed by his father-in-law in favour of his wife. The declaratory suit necessarily involves the findings of fact with regard to the source of title set up by the appellant/plaintiff. In this case, the appellant failed to prove title, on that ground the Courts below denied the relief. No substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. The second appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.12.2011 Pln [1] 2004 (2) ALD 31 (SC)