HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.389 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff, Gundeboyina Sydulu, filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.33 of 1994 dated 11-08-1998 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the judgment and decree in O.S. No.17 of 1989 dated 05-07-1994 passed by the District Munsif, Jaggaiahpet, is confirmed. 2. During pendency of this second appeal, as the sole respondent – defendant, Bathineni Savitramma, died, her adopted mother Smt. G. Rajyam came on record as her legal representative as respondent No.2, vide order of this Court dated 22-01-2009 in S.A.C.M.P. No.2714 of 2007. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit before the trial Court. 4. Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.17 of 1989 against the sole defendant claiming ownership over the plot bearing No.13 admeasuring Ac.0.04 cents in R.S. No.140/2B situate at Vatsvai Village, contending that Mandal Revenue Officer, Vatsavai assigned that plot to him on 28-10-1986 under Ex.A-1 patta. 5. The case of the sole defendant is that in fact she was assigned that land by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 28-10-1987. 6. The fact appears to be that undisputedly the plot in dispute was originally allotted to one Jajam Subba Rao, PW.2, and he surrendered the same to the authorities concerned as he was moving out of Vatsavai Village and went to Jggaiahpet, where he wanted another site to be allotted to him. Thereafter, that plot was allotted in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 patta, but there is also no dispute that it was allotted to the defendant under Ex.B-1 on 28-10-1987. DW.3, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was examined on behalf of the defendant, has stated that Ex.B-1 bears signature of his predecessor and he also stated that in Ex.A-1 there is interpolation-of striking out the name of the original allottee and adding the name of present allottee, plaintiff, and according to learned counsel for the plaintiff, father’s name of the plaintiff tallies. 7. Thus, there appears to be no serious dispute about the plot in dispute being allotted to the plaintiff and at the same time, there is also no dispute about the same plot being allotted to the defendant under Ex.B-1 patta. It is not clear as to how the same plot was allotted to two people. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, as plaintiff’s allottment was earlier and without canceling it, allottment in favour of the defendant would be void. 8. But, it is a suit for mere injunction and the question is with regard to possession, which has to be established by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to show his possession. He has examined PWs.2, 3 and 4, on his behalf to show, his possession over the plot in dispute. PW.3, though initially stated that plaintiff was in possession of the plot in dispute, in the cross- examination, he admitted that he (PW.3) is not residing near the plot in dispute i.e. in plot No.14. The suit plot being plot No.13 and that his brother-in-law is staying there, thus he (PW.3) is not competent witness to speak about possession. But, his brother-in-law, who was stated to be staying near the plot in dispute, ought to have been examined to speak about the same. Evidence of PW.4 is still worst. His evidence is that plaintiff is not residing in the suit plot and that he is residing elsewhere in a building. Thus, there is no documentary evidence and the evidence of independent witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff itself, shows that plaintiff is not in possession of the plot in dispute. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that as Ex.A-1 is a true document under which patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff, possession has to be deemed to be that of the plaintiff himself. This contention cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the case, where there is also a patta certificate in favour of the defendant under Ex.B-1 and the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff itself shows that plaintiff is not at all in possession of the plot in dispute and the suit is for mere injunction. 10. In all the above circumstances, it is not a case for disturbing the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Hence, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 8, 2010. PV