HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.1098 OF 2009 Dt.29.1.2010 Between: K.Jayamma and another .. Appellants And Siddeswara Chetty .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.1098 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: Appellants herein are defendants and respondent is the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.103 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, seeking for declaration of his right and title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, was decreed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.1996. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed A.S.No.164 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal by judgment, dated 5.1.2007. Against which, this second appeal is filed by the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the 1st defendant, who mortgaged the suit property along with other properties in favour of T.Chenchulakshmamma, and the 1st defendant also mortgaged the suit property and another property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered mortgage deed dated 12.9.1980 in order to discharge the debts and for discharging other debts the 1st defendant bargained to sell the suit properties to plaintiff for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the bargain was accepted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff undertook to discharge the simple mortgage deed dated 11.8.1980 due to Chenchulakshamma and also adjusted the simple mortgage deed dated 12.9.1980 which came to Rs.17,100/- and the balance of Rs.2900/- was paid to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff and thus the total consideration of Rs.20,000/- was paid. Accordingly, the 1st defendant executed a registered sale deed conveying the property and put the plaintiff in possession thereof and after the purchase the plaintiff effected small alterations and improvements by expending Rs.2000/- and that the sale deed dated 17.8.1981 in favour of the plaintiff is known to defendants 2 and 3, daughter and mother of the 1st defendant, were living together. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff obtained the alleged sale deed by fraud and undue influence and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the plaintiff and examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8 on behalf of the defendants. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit by judgment dated 26.7.1996 holding that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule is not the result of fraud and undue influence as contended by the 1st defendant and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit in faovur of the plaintiff, defendants filed A.S.No.164 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The lower appellate court on re- consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 5.1.2007 holding that the recitals of Ex.A-1 indicates that there was earlier mortgage debt and the property was sold and the balance of sale consideration was paid to the 1st defendant in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent, consistent and believable and the evidence of D.W.1 does not inspire any confidence and that the so- called fraud was not at all established by the defendants. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid concurrent findings of both the courts below, it cannot be said that the lower appellate court has not considered the contentions independently in appreciating the material evidence available on record in dismissing the appeal. On re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent, consistent and believable and the evidence of D.W.1 does not inspire confidence in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings of both the courts below, I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 29.1.2010 kpr