THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.479 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 30.04.1999 passed in A.S.No.28 of 1995 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, reversing the decree and judgment dated 03.02.1995 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi, in O.S.No.298 of 1991. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The brief facts that are necessary for considering the second appeal may be stated as follows: The plaintiff is the appellant herein and the defendants are the respondents herein. For the purpose of widening the Sannadhi Street for the convenience of the pilgrims, plaint A schedule property owned by the plaintiff, which is a shop-cum-residence, was demolished by the defendants. The property was acquired for the said public purpose and adequate compensation was paid to the owner of the property. The plaintiff claims to be a tenant of the said property. The defendants have also provided alternative accommodation to the plaintiff for the time being in plaint C schedule property, which is nothing but room No.74 in III Choultry, which is intended for the pilgrims. Subsequently, plaint B schedule property at Balaji nagar, Tirumala, was allotted to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the said property is not convenient for his business and he has to be provided a property, which is a shop- cum-residence for his living and carrying on business. In spite of allotment of plaint B schedule property at Balaji nagar, the plaintiff did not vacate plaint C schedule property at III Choultry. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is causing lot of inconvenience to the pilgrims by not vacating the plaint C schedule property. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint C schedule property. The learned trial Court, on an erroneous view that the authorities of TTD have to provide the plaintiff alternative accommodation under the agreement to the said effect, granted the relief against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint C schedule property by the plaintiff till disposal of his representation, which is pending before the temple authorities. The defendants questioned the said decree and judgment in A.S.No.28 of 1995 and the learned III Additional District Judge allowed the first appeal reversing the findings of the learned trial Court. The first appellate Court had categorically recorded clear findings that earlier the plaintiff filed O.S.No.99 of 1985 in respect of plaint C schedule property for the same relief and the suit was dismissed and the plaintiff filed I.A.No.163 of 1991 to set aside the dismissal order, which was also dismissed, against which he filed a C.M.A. before the District Judge, which was also dismissed and thereupon he filed a C.R.P. before the High Court. According to the plaintiff in the said C.R.P., the High Court granted the relief to file a fresh suit if new cause of action arises. But, the learned first appellate Court observed that the plaintiff did not file orders in C.M.A. and C.R.P. and therefore, it is not possible to appreciate the contention of the plaintiff. Therefore, the first appellate Court concluded that in the absence of any proof placed by the plaintiff indicating leave granted by the High Court enabling him to file a fresh suit if new cause of action arises, the subsequent suit in respect of the same property for the very same relief arising out of the same cause of action is barred under the provisions of Order II Rule 2(3) C.P.C. The first appellate Court also rightly held that since the compensation has been fully paid to the owner of the property, the plaintiff, who is a tenant, cannot claim any right in the property which was acquired for public purpose by the defendants and thus he cannot insist upon the defendants to provide alternative accommodation for him. Despite the fact that the plaintiff has no right against the defendants, the defendants have provided him alternative accommodation, but the plaintiff has been claiming that a particular type of accommodation consisting of shop-cum-residence room has to be given to him at the place of his choice, to which he is not entitled to. Holding so, the first appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Main basis for reversing the judgment of the trial Court is that the plaintiff has absolutely no right to insist upon the defendants to provide alternative accommodation and has also no right to continue in possession of plaint C schedule property, which is a choultry room intended for the pilgrims on the pretext that he was not provided alternative accommodation of his choice. The judgment rendered by the first appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is based on evidence and reasoning and it is strictly in accordance with law. Absolutely, in this second appeal, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court being not perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, are final and this Court is not supposed to interfere with such findings in this second appeal. For the aforementioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 11th February, 2011 GHN