HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.Nos.896 and 948 of 2010 Dt.22.10.2010 S.A.No.896 of 2010 Between: K.Anjaneyulu Reddy ..Appellant And Chinnakka and others ..Respondents S.A.NO.948 OF 2010 Between: K.Anjaneyulu Reddy ..Appellant And Chinnakka and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.Nos.896 and 948 of 2010 JUDGMENT: These two second appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 29.12.2009 in A.S.Nos.195 of 1996 and 193 of 1996 respectively on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1996 in O.S.Nos.809 of 1986 and 768 of 1985 respectively on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chittoor. Appellant in S.A.No.896 of 2010 and 2 others filed O.S.No.809 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chittoor for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein for interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment to an extent of Ac.5.47 cents of the suit schedule properties situated in S.Nos.312 and 313 and its various sub numbers. The defendants in the said suit O.S.No.809 of 1986 filed O.S.No.768 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chittoor, against plaintiffs in O.S.No.809 of 1986 and others seeking for partition of B schedule properties in three equal shares. B schedule property in O.S.No.768 of 1985 is in respect of S.No.312/12 to an extent of 0.09 Hectors, S.No.312/2 to an extent of 0.16 Hectors, S.No.313/9 to an extent of 1.26 Hectors, S.No.313/18 to an extent of 0.06 Hectors and S.No.313/20 to an extent of 0.05 Hectors. In so far as A schedule property in O.S.No.768 of 1985 is concerned, it is stated that the said property have fallen to the share of defendants in the said suit and there is no dispute. But, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.809 of 1986 filed the said suit in respect of B schedule properties of O.S.No.768 of 1985 as well as some other properties also. The trail court after considering the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit O.S.No.768 of 1985 by passing a preliminary decree for partition and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein and others in O.S.No.809 of 1986 on the ground that the lands claimed by the plaintiffs have not been correlated to Ex.A-1 and they are not in exclusive possession of the plaint schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, all the three plaintiffs filed A.S.No.195 of 1996 and as against the judgment in O.S.No.768 of 1985 the appellant herein i.e., K.Anjaneyulu Reddy along with three others, namely, K.Rami Reddy, Gopamma and K.Chinnabba Reddy filed A.S.No.193 of 1996 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor. The lower appellate court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence confirmed the judgments of the trial court and dismissed the appeals by judgment and decree dated 29.12.2009. Against which, K.Anjaneyulu Reddy i.e.., plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.809 of 1986 and defendant No.9 in O.S.No.768 of 1985 alone filed these two second appeals. Sri A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the courts below did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and the judgments of the courts below are not in consonance with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. Both the courts below have thoroughly examined the oral and documentary evidence and held that the appellant herein along with other plaintiffs in O.S.No.809 of 1986 and defendants in O.S.No.768 of 1985 have failed to establish their right, title and possession in respect of B schedule properties in O.S.No.768 of 1985, which they have relied on Ex.A-1. Ex.A-1 was not correlated in respect of B schedule properties and both the courts below have rightly placed reliance on the long-standing possession with reference to the revenue records. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the second appeals. The second appeals are accordingly dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 22.10.2010 kpr