THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.614 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The sole appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Appellant No.1 filed O.S.No.56 of 1999 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur against the respondents for declaration of his title over a bund with revetment (thette), described in the suit schedule, and for injunction in relation thereto. He pleaded that the bund is owned by their family, since past several generations, and the respondents, who owned the land on the southern side of the bund, are trying to invade the rights of appellant No.1. The descriptive particulars of the bund as well as the lands owned by appellant No.1 on the southern side and those owned by the respondents on the northern side were furnished. The respondents filed a written statement denying the allegations. They too have stated the manner of exercise of rights vis-à-vis the bund and the trees that have grown around it. Through its judgment, dated 25.04.2000, the trial Court partly decreed the suit recognizing the title of appellant No.1 to an extent of 0.57 links and granted injunction to that extent. The appellant filed A.S.No.24 of 2000 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, feeling aggrieved by the denial of relief as regards the balance of the bund. The appeal was dismissed on 25.07.2006. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri Venkateswar Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. The second appeal arises out of concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff and his ancestors have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the thette wall since more than 100 years? (3) Whether the plaintiff has also acquired title to the said thette wall by way of adverse possession? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title to the suit property? (5) Whether the thette wall is being used as passage by the people since long time? On behalf of appellant No.1, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the report etc., submitted by him were taken on record as Exs.C1 to C4. The suit was partly decreed and the same was affirmed in the appeal. The claim made by appellant No.1 was not on the basis of any documents or entries in the revenue records. Though it was based on succession from the ancestors, the record did not disclose that the rights of the ancestors of appellant No.1 are recognized in relation thereto. Without standing on technicalities, the trial Court went deep into the facts of the material and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that appellant No.1 has absolute right and title over the bund to the extent of 0.57 links. The claim as regards the balance of the bund was rejected on a submission in the form of a concession made on behalf of appellant No.1 himself. For all practical purposes, appellant No.1 conceded that the respondents have right over the balance of the bund. In that view of the matter, there was no basis for preferring the appeal or for that matter, the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.08.2010. kdl