THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO. S.A.NO.255 OF 2010. O R D E R: The second appeal arises out of Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 2002, instituted by the Respondent herein, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Nirmal, which were confirmed in A.S.No.24 of 2007, preferred by the Appellant herein, on the file of the Ist Additional District Judge, Adilabad. The Appellant herein and the Respondent were married and the said marriage subsisted till it was dissolved due to the intervention of the Court. The Respondent instituted O.S.No.23 of 2002 seeking for declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property and for consequential perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant in the said suit, the Appellant herein, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The suit schedule property consists of commercial plot Nos.2 and 3 and residential plot No.2 situate in Sy.Nos. 1020 and 1021 of Nirmal Revenue limits and a shed indentified by Municipal Door No.1-3-156/5A. The Respondent Plaintiff’s case is that she purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 30-01-1992 with the financial assistance rendered by her brother and that since then she was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. It was also her case that she was paying the municipal taxes regularly. The Appellant has resisted the suit claim by pointing out that the shed was constructed by him in Sy. Nos.1020 and 1021, for carrying on business in stones and tiles under the name and style of ‘M/s. Navodaya Traders’ and that he has been carrying on the said business there. The Appellant has admitted his marriage with the Respondent plaintiff on 10-12-1986. It is his case that he carried on the business, initially, together with the brothers of the Respondent plaintiff and subsequently, he has established his own independent business under the name and style - ‘M/s. Navodaya Traders’, after taking the land on lease basis. The appellant asserted that he has purchased the said land from the previous owner for a consideration of Rs.1,44,500/-, however, the sale deed has been obtained in the name of the Respondent plaintiff by her brother and since, the sale deed is sought to be obtained in the name of his wife, the Appellant has not raised serious objection for the same and did not take steps for getting the said deed cancelled. Since, the Appellant has developed his own business, he has come to be perceived as a competitor to the business carried on by his own brothers-in-law and hence, certain enmity has cropped up between the parties. Under the guidance and influence of her father and brothers, the Respondent wife left the matrimonial home ever since 01-08-1997 and was living away from the Appellant. In view of the animosity between the parties that has cropped up lately, the suit has been got instituted, maliciously, so as to wreck vengeance against the Appellant herein. On behalf of the plaintiff five witnesses including the plaintiff herself as Pw.1 are examined and Ex.A1 to A8 got marked. The Defendant/Appellant has also examined five witnesses including himself as Dw.1 and he got marked Exs.B1 to B37. This apart, the court also got marked Exs.X1 to X3. On a proper analysis of the evidence on record, the trial court has noticed that the Defendant Appellant has not chosen to examine the other vendors though one of the vendors by name Sri P.Malla Reddy died. The Appellant has also not chosen to examine the scribe of Exs.A1 and A2 to substantiate his contention that it is he who entered into the transaction and paid for it. Further, PWs 3 and 4, have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, who supported the case of the plaintiff rather than the case of the defendant/appellant. The two registered sale deeds Exs.A1 and A2 plainly disclose that the suit schedule property has been purchased by the plaintiff herself. The trial court has further found that in support of the contention of the defendant/appellant that he has obtained the suit schedule property on lease basis initially from Sri Malla Reddy and subsequently he has purchased the same, he could not lead any reliable evidence. Further, PW5 one of the attestors of Exs.A1 and A2 has deposed that the defendant himself got the sale deeds type written in favour of the plaintiff after purchasing the necessary stamps in her name and at that time the defendant has informed that the necessary financial support for the transaction has been lent by the brothers of the plaintiff. Though a contra suggestion has been put to the said witness, the said lead has not been carried to its logical end, when the witness denied the suggestion. The plaintiff herself has produced the two title deeds Exs.A1 and A2 which are lying in her custody. Even this circumstance has not helped the case of the defendant/appellant, though he made an attempt to demonstrate the contradictions in the statements made by the plaintiff in this case and also in the criminal case C.C. No.385/97. Thus, the suit came to be decreed. The appellate court has examined the whole gamut of the story afresh. One of the important contentions canvassed before the appellate court was that the name of DW1 (the defendant/appellant) was incorporated subsequently in Exs.X1 and X2 and the signature on Exs.X1 and X2 does not tally with the signature of DW1 (the defendant/appellant) and that in such circumstances without sending the documents for an expert advice, the trial court disbelieved the version of the defendant. The appellate court has noticed that the trial court took pains to compare the signatures, within the parameters of Section 73 of the Evidence Act and opined that the signatures found on Exs.X1 and X2 are the signatures of DW1 (defendant/appellant). Therefore, there was no compulsion thrust upon the court to feel compelled to refer the documents Exs.X1 and X2 for the purpose of consideration and advice to be tendered by an expert. Further the appellate court has re-examined the entire evidence and concurrently held, as a fact, that it is PW2 who gave two cheques to DW1 (defendant/appellant) for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said cheques have been en-cashed by DW1 (defendant/appellant). The appellant could not successfully demonstrate as to the reasons why PW2 had to give Rs.1,50,000/- to him, if it is not meant to be paid as consideration for the sale transaction. The appellate court has also noticed that the appellant admitted as a fact that he has pledged the gold ornaments for availing loan from the banks and the banks have sold the same by auction as the appellant committed default in repayment. This aspect has thrown sufficient doubt about the financial capacity of the appellant to invest huge amounts for purchase of immovable properties simultaneously. The contradictions which the appellant/defendant wanted to highlight have been properly dealt with by the appellate court by pointing out that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant got worsened only after the year 1992 and till then the relationship being what it was, no serious significance can be attached to the statements said to have been made earlier. Hence, the appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed. While strenuously contending that both courts have erred in their findings of fact, the learned counsel for the appellant Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao would submit that both courts have improperly denied to declare the respondent/plaintiff as a mere binamidar and that it is the appellant who is the true owner of the suit schedule property. As was noticed supra the trial court as well as the appellate court has minutely considered the evidence that was brought on record which clearly established, as a fact that it is the brothers of the plaintiff who lent financial support to her to purchase the suit property and the necessary evidence has been marshaled by the plaintiff in that respect, whereas except denying that no such financial support was lent by the brothers of the plaintiff the appellant has not brought forth any material evidence to demonstrate that it is he, who spared the necessary funds for entering into the said sale transactions in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary the plaintiff has taken care to bring on record evidence to demonstrate that the appellant was not in such a sound financial condition as to support the view that he has such huge surplus funds available for investing in the suit schedule property when he could not liquidate his liability resulting in sale by auction of the gold ornaments pledged by him to the bankers. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts, which are based upon proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence that was marshaled by the plaintiff/respondent, no exception there to need be drawn. No substantial questions of law of importance do arise, for me to consider admitting the second appeal for further consideration. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage, but however without costs. Nooty Ramamohana Rao,J 15th December, 2010