IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL NO.870 OF 2009. Between:- Devu Suryanarayana .. Appellant/Plaintiff And Devu Rajamani and another .. Respondents/defendants. JUDGMENT: The second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.07.1996 in A.S.No.24 of 1995 on the file of the District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram wherein the said appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed confirming the decree and judgment dated 15.12.1994 in O.S.No.22 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Vizianagaram wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. 3. Perused the records. 4. The appellant herein filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with construction of septic latrine and septic tank shown as E.F.G.H. and I.J.K.L. in the plaint plan and with the construction of the wall in between the points X and Y shown in the plaint plan. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same and after obtaining permission from Vizianagaram Municipality, he constructed septic latrine and septic tank. He alleges that the defendants, who are wife and husband, are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the septic latrine and septic tank without having any right and that on 20.01.1986, the defendants proclaimed that they will not allow the plaintiff to construct the wall between points X and Y. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the site on which he proposed to construct the septic tank and septic latrine and the wall and that the said site is part of rastha meant for the defendants and others and the plaintiff is making attempts to encroach upon the said rastha and construct the septic tank and latrine illegally. 5. The trial Court framed the following issue for consideration: “Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the site wherein I.J.K.L. marked wall is proposed to be constructed?” 6. In support of their case, the plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. The defendants examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not the owner of I.J.K.L portion and also the XY portions of the plaint plan and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 1995. The learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, held that the appellant/plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the property and held that the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference with the Judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 8. A perusal of the Judgment of the Courts below disclose that the dispute is related to a piece of land marked as E.F.G.H and I.J.K.L and also XY shown in plaint plan, the plaintiff claiming to be the absolute owner of the said site and the defendant disputing in between the plaintiff’s ownership and also possession. The plaintiff based his claim for injunction on the ground that he is the owner of the said site and also in possession and enjoyment thereof and therefore, he is entitled to proceed with the proposed construction of septic latrine and tank and also wall in the disputed site. The Courts below, on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly, the recitals in the title deeds, held that the plaintiff is not shown to be the owner of the disputed site. On reappraisal of the evidence, the Appellate Court reiterated that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is contrary to the recitals in the documents and the plaintiff is not shown to be either owner of the site or in possession thereof. It is a concurrent finding purely on a disputed question of fact recorded by the Courts below, based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. No question of Law much less substantial question of Law arises for consideration in the second appeal. The grounds of appeal filed in the second appeal do not disclose any question of Law much less substantial question of Law requiring adjudication by this Court. In these circumstances, it is held that there are no merits in the second appeal. 9. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th September, 2009 AMD