IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.792 of 1999 BETWEEN Pangoth Laskher. …APPELLANT AND Pangoth Gopya and four others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. M. RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S. GOPAL RAO The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the plaintiff, who could not succeed before both the Courts below in seeking permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with his alleged possession of suit schedule land. 2. Plaintiff’s case in the suit O.S.No.126 of 1992 before the trial Court was that in the family partition a total extent of Ac.5.33 guntas of land fell to the share of his family, which comprised of his mother and brother, and that his share works out to Ac.2.16 guntas. On the basis of true copies of pahanies – Exs.A1 to A4 and the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer – Exs.A5 and A6 respectively, he sought injunction by asserting exclusive possession. The respondents/defendants contested the said claim by asserting that the entire extent of Ac.5.33 guntas of land, which fell to the share of plaintiff’s family was sold away by his mother and brother long back under registered sale deeds – Exs.B1 and B3 dated 12.06.1995 and 30.07.1992 respectively and at the time of sale the plaintiff was a minor and as such, he cannot claim any land, as no land is left over. The pahanies produced by the plaintiff were disputed by the defendants by filing other revenue record, which includes faisal patti – Ex.B14 and the order issued by MRO – Ex.B15 certifying that entries in Exs.A1 to A4 are incorrect. 3. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record rejected the plaintiff’s case by finding that there is no evidence of the plaintiff being in possession on the date of suit. On appeal, being A.S.No.15 of 1996, the lower appellate Court has concurred with the said view after duly considering the entire evidence on record. 4. This appeal is, therefore, preferred by the plaintiff and the substantial question of law formulated by this Court at the time of admission on 30.10.2000 was as follows: “Whether the lower appellate Court has complied with the requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC while passing the judgment and decree?” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not only supported the said question but has argued that the trial Court and the appellate Court decided the suit on the basis of Ex.B15 certificate of the MRO against which the plaintiff had filed a revision before the RDO and the same was allowed and the matter was remitted back. Learned counsel, however, fairly admitted that the said order of the RDO in Appeal Case No.P/2241/96 dated 12.02.1999 was not exhibited. 6. To the extent of the substantial question formulated, as above, I have seen the judgment of the lower appellate Court, which, no doubt, framed the point for consideration in para 7 of the judgment, which is comprehensive enough, though desirably the said question could have been more appropriately framed. The lower appellate Court has kept in mind the various grounds raised by the appellant in the Court of first appeal and framed a question as to whether the trial Court’s judgment suffers from any infirmity in view of the said grounds of appeal. The desirability of framing an appropriate point for consideration under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is, not in doubt, as a duty is cast on the lower appellate Court. However, after examining the judgment of the lower appellate Court in extenso, I am of the view that the lower appellate Court was conscious of the requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and on the point, as framed by it, it wanted to examine the judgment of the trial Court with reference to various grounds raised by the appellant in support of the appeal, I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. 7. Secondly, even on consideration of the matter on merits, it was found by both the Courts below that under Exs.B1 and B3 – registered sale deeds the entire Ac.5.33 guntas of land was sold by the mother and brother of the appellant to one Ch. Kanakaiah. Plaintiff states that it was during his minority that the said sale took place but the plaintiff has not questioned the said sale and only through this present suit for injunction based on true copies of pahanies – Exs.A1 to A4, injunction, as prayed for, is sought. Both the Courts below, therefore, were justified in finding that Exs.B1 and B3 negatived the plaintiff’s claim and his claim for possession cannot be said to have been established on the basis of true copies of pahanies – Exs.A1 to A4, particularly, when the respondents/defendants had filed faisal patti and land revenue receipts – Ex.B14 and Exs.B10 and B11 respectively. Further, the veracity of the pahanies – Exs.A1 to A4 stood negatived by the certificate of the MRO – Ex.B15 that the entries in Exs.A1 to A4 are incorrect. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the appellant. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the proceedings regarding mutation and ROR enquiries are pending with the revenue authorities. The appellant is at liberty to pursue those proceedings. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 12, 2010 DSK