THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.912 OF 1997 JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1997 in A.S.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Penukonda, allowing the said appeal at the instance of the respondents-defendants and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1993 in O.S.No.4 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Penukonda, in favour of the appellants in a suit filed for perpetual injunction. In the suit, the appellants-plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property on the ground that they alone are entitled for possession and entitlement. After contest by the respondents denying the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights, they stated that they too have their own rights, since the parties are closely related and coming from the same family and further, the said property being ancestral. Therefore, the question of granting injunction does not arise. However, after the regular trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs having been in possession. Later on, on appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate Court, after going into the facts and circumstances once again, found that, admittedly, every one is a member of the same family and the property being ancestral, necessarily, it gives rise to serious question of alleged entitlement. Therefore, with a finding that such question cannot be gone into, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available, it is seen that there is no dispute of the fact that initially, the property is ancestral and both the sides came from same family. Though the appellants claim exclusive rights, the respondents denied the same. Even the respondents also claim their own title and possession in the manner, which has been stated in the pleadings. Be that as it may, it would suffice in the interest of justice by leaving it open for the appellants to file a comprehensive suit either for declaration or partition, as the case may be and seek appropriate relief and consequential interim reliefs to protect their possession, which would be considered in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of these proceedings. Hence, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises to warrant interference with the order of the Court below. Subject to the above, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 9th September 2010 Note: CC by one week B/O RRB