HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 1021 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 06.06.2011 passed in A.S.No. 195 of 2007 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 passed in O.S.No. 533 of 1995 by the XIII Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit viz., O.S.No. 533 of 1995. The suit was filed for possession of the suit schedule shops and for recovery of arrears of mesne profits to a tune of Rs. 2,16,000/- and for future mesne profits at Rs. 6,000/- per month and costs of the suit. The trial Court while dealing with the issue framed the following charges: 1. Whether the plaintiff is not the owner of the mulgies mentioned in the schedule? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the schedule mulgies? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of profits claimed? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the future mesne profits claimed by him? 5. To what relief?” The trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit with costs directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule shops to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment failing which plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same through process of law. The trial Court further directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- towards mesne profits upto the date of filing of suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendants in the suit filed appeal and the appellate Court dismissed the same confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the court below has not taken into consideration whether the plaintiff is the lessor or licensor and it ignored the fact that the plaintiff addressed the defendants after the death of R.K.Soni and there is no proof of sale of mulgies in favour of defendants. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit directing defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule shops to the plaintiff within two months. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 16.09.2011 KA