THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.112 of 2010 Dated: 09th February, 2010 Between: 1. Kodaru Laxmi Narayana & Ors. …Appellants and Kadaru Hari Prasad Rao …Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.112 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2009 passed in A.S.No.48 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment dated 26.10.2006 passed in O.S.No.54 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, Nalgonda District. 2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, Nalgonda District. He filed the suit against the appellants herein alleging inter alia that the suit schedule properties fell to his share in the partition that took place in the year 1980 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The 1st appellant/1st defendant filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court formulated the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule landed properties? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and no documents were marked. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for parties, decreed the suit, by judgment dated 26.10.2006. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 2001 by filing an appeal being A.S.No.48 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. The appeal filed by them ended in dismissed on 07.10.2009. Hence, the Second Appeal by the appellants/defendants. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants submits that the respondent/plaintiff taking advantage of the entries in the revenue records filed the suit and obtained a decree. A further submission has been made that the partition alleged by the respondent/plaintiff in the year 1980 is not correct. 5. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction simplicitor. He asserted that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties since the year 1980. He placed on record Pahani Patrikas for the years 1992-’93 to 1999-2000, which have been exhibited as Exs.A1 to A8. The entries in the Pahani Patrikas speak of the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties. I do not see any flaw in the judgment passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court. There is no substantial question of law, which is required to be adjudicated in this Second Appeal. 6. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th February, 2010. Cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.112 of 2010 Dated: 09th February, 2010