HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.966 OF 2011 DATE:27-08-2011 BETWEEN Gunji Kumari …Appellant AND Gunji Narasimham @ Narasimhulu …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.966 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal by the unsuccessful defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dismissing the appeal filed by her in A.S.No.5 of 2009, dated 8.6.2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, Krishna District in O.S.No.30 of 2003, dated 01.06.2009 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court. Plaintiff is the father-in-law of the defendant-appellant herein. He instituted the above suit stating that he got three sons namely Venkateswara Rao, Veera Venkaiah and Krishnaiah and that he got a daughter by name Veera Venkamma. The plaintiff performed their marriages and they are living separately. The defendant is the wife of youngest son i.e. Krishnaiah. The Government assigned Ac.0.03 ¼ cents of house site to the plaintiff in R.S.No.450/11 of Raghavarapuram, which is the suit schedule property and that the Government also issued D-patta in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff raised loan from State Housing Corporation Limited and got constructed a house in the suit schedule property and that apart, he also raised private loan of Rs.30,000/- for construction of the house. The plaintiff obtained electrical service connection to the house and he has been paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat and he is residing therein. His eldest son- Gunji Jamalaiah is now looking after the plaintiff. Out of love and affection, plaintiff executed a Will deed dated 12.1.2001 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of Jamalaiah. The husband of the defendant died intestate. During his lifetime, he and the defendant lived at the house of maternal grandmother of the defendant. At that time, Krishnaiah got issued a legal notice to the plaintiff and the plaintiff replied the same. After the death of her husband, the defendant has been residing with her maternal grandmother. The defendant, who is nothing to do with the suit schedule property, is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and to occupy the same by force. Hence the suit. Contesting the suit, first defendant filed a written statement, wherein she admitted about the assignment of the property in favour of the plaintiff, but she contended that at the time of her marriage, the plaintiff, her husband and other sons were living together in a thatched house, which was situated in the plaint schedule property. After one year of her marriage, the Government allotted house plot to the elder son of the plaintiff. At that time, the husband of the defendant constructed a tiled house with his own funds and hard work. From the date of construction, the defendant has been residing in northern portion and the plaintiff has been residing in southern portion of the house. After the death of her husband on 4.4.2002, disputes arose between the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought up the son of his eldest son and making attempts to send away the defendant from the suit schedule property and that she never tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint. The brother of the plaintiff G.Jamalaiah filed O.S.No.701 of 2002 against the defendant, which is being contested by her. While the said suit is pending, the present suit is filed to harass her. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the issue ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?’. To substantiate the case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. Whereas the defendant herself examined as D.W.1 apart from examining D.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.18. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, particularly, Ex.A.12-list of beneficiaries, which has been proved by Ex.A.1-pass book, Exs.A.2 to A.5 and A.10-electricity receipts, Exs.A.6 and 7-receipts issued by A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited evidencing payment of instalments of loan obtained by plaintiff, Exs.A.8 and 9-house tax receipts and coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant who herself examined as D.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that the plaint schedule house stands in the name of P.W.1-plaintiff in the panchayat records, who also admitted that P.W.1 has been residing in the said house in one portion, but she failed to establish that her husband constructed the suit schedule house and was residing in one portion. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court reanalyzed the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the admission of second appeal and perused the records. Though the appellant-defendant pleaded that her late husband constructed the suit schedule house and was residing therein till his death and thereafter, she has been residing in one portion of the said house, she failed to prove her possession over the property as on the date of filing of the suit. Even according to her, the house stands in the name of the plaintiff and he is residing in one portion thereof. Further according to the plaintiff, he alone is in possession of the suit schedule house and he proved his possession by filing Exs.A.1 to A.5 and A.8 to A.10. According to him he executed a registered Will deed on 12.11.2001 bequeathing the suit schedule house in favour of his grandson Jamalaiah. Though the defendant filed Ex.B.5-household card issued in her favour to prove that she has been residing in the suit schedule house, the said document was issued in 2006 i.e. after filing the suit and therefore, the same will not prove her possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective does not give rise to any substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 27, 2011 Tsr.