THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1061 of 2009 J U D G M E N T: Plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. They instituted civil suit, O.S.No. 193 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Adilabad, seeking to recover possession of the suit schedule land from the defendants/respondents. The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the plaintiffs and also marked Exs.A1 to A18. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and they got marked Exs.B1 to B25. On a proper and careful analysis of the evidence that was brought before the trial Court, it has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs could not establish the oral extension of lease granted by them in favour of the defendants/respondents, for the period from 1970 up to the year 2000. In view of the failure of the plaintiffs to establish the extension of the lease period as proposed by them, and in view of the evidence that was brought before the trial Court by the defendants that they have, instead, purchased the suit schedule property, as per Ex.B2, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Then the plaintiffs have gone in appeal by instituting A.S.No. 16 of 2005 before the Court of the District Judge, Adilabad. The learned District Judge had confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs have invented this plea of extension of lease by 30 years and the receipt of total rent of Rs.6,000/- in advance with a view to overcome the difficulties in their case and also with a view to counter the case of the defendants based on Ex.B2 sale deed as pleaded by them. In view of this concurrent finding of fact, the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been instituted. I have heard Sri V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs as well as Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to re-agitate about the correctness of the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court with regard to the oral extension of lease accorded by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants for a period of 30 years from 1970 to 2000, but however, without taking into account the very conduct of the plaintiffs in keeping quiet ever since 1970, without in any manner agitating about any of their rights, the learned counsel for the appellants has tried to attack the findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to Exs.B2 and B3. However, it is a well- settled principle of law that the plaintiffs will have to succeed entirely on the strength of their own case as set up by them and they cannot try to succeed on the basis of lack of the strength or weaknesses of the case set up by the defendants. One important feature that requires to be noticed before proceeding further in the matter is this; both the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents had a good round of negotiations amongst themselves for the purpose of burying any subsisting or future misgivings amongst the parties. Consequently, the 2nd resondent/2nd defendant in the suit paid the following amounts to the plaintiffs/appellants on 09.04.2010: 1. Soma Ganga Reddy – Appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) through banker cheque No.951662, dated 07.04.2010 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Adilabad Branch. 2. Soma Gangaram @ Naldipi Gangaram – Appellant No.2/plaintiff No.2 Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) cash. 3. Soma Gangader – Appellant No.3/plaintiff No.3 Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) through Banker Cheque No. 951661, dated 07.04.2010 of State Bank of Hyderabad Adilabad Branch. 4. Soma Chinna Gangader – Appellant No.4/plaintiffNo.4 Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) through Banker Cheque No. 951660 dated 07.04.2010 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Adilabad Branch. 5. Soma Tirupathi – Appellant No. 5 / Plaintiff No. 5 Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) through Banker Cheque No. 951659 dated 07.04.2010 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Adilabad Branch. All the plaintiffs, excepting the 1st plaintiff, were present on the previous occasion and acknowledged the receipt of monies/pay orders/demand drafts tendered by the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. On behalf of the ailing 1st plaintiff, his two sons who were present in the Court, affirmed the receipt of money by the 1st plaintiff. Therefore, these payments made by the 2nd defendant in the suit are recorded merely to emphasize the measure of good will extended by him towards the plaintiffs. However, I do not find any merits in the Second Appeal as the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case of oral extension of lease by a period of 30 years from 1970 to 2000 in favour of the defendants in the suit, cannot be upset by re-appreciating the evidence in this Second Appeal. There are no other grounds urged and consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court, for it to admit the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 16th April 2010 Note: Issue CC in a week. ksld