HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.977 of 2003 Dated: 03-12-2010 Between: Guntaka Radha Krishna Reddy …Appellant AND Palareddi Venkata Reddi Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.977 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower appellate Court filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 7.8.2003 in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.471 of 1991 which was decreed in favour of the appellant filed for permanent injunction, by III Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada, dated 9.6.1997. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court. According to the plaintiff, one Jaggavaraju Veera Reddy, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff gifted his property including the plaint schedule property, which is two cents in Sy.No.206/8 and 206/9 of Nunna Village on 13.4.1956 to the plaintiff and his brothers. In the family partition, the plaintiff got Ac.0.28 ½ cents of land, which is included the well and mota in an area of 6 cents. Except the said 6 cents, the plaintiff sold away the remaining extent to others. In the said 6 cents, the well is comprised of 3 cents and Bara is comprised of 3 cents. The Baru is to the south of the well. Out of the 3 cents under Baru, the plaintiff left out one cent of land under road for the convenience of himself and his vendors and thus the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of 2 cents of land over which, no one had any right or title. The defendants without having any right, title or interest over the said 2 cents of land, highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and in that process, they highhandedly unloaded two truckloads of big stones in those two cents of land on 1.7.1991. Hence, the suit. Contesting the suit, first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. According to the defendants, one J. Veera Reddy was not the owner of the land under Mota Bavi and Baru and that it is the joint property of so many surrounding land owners, that he was having the right to draw water from the well, and that he has 1/9th share only therein. Therefore, said J.Veera Reddy had no right to convey any land under Mota Bavi and Baru to the plaintiff. Since the neighbouring land owners stopped using the Baru and as the water is being drawn by setting up engines near the well, there was an arrangement arrived at by all the neighbouring land owners that the land where the well is situated was to be left as it is with sufficient space all around to enable the owners of the neighbouring lands to draw the water by setting up engines and necessary pipes, and a library should be constructed in the disputed two cents of schedule property for community purpose, which was also agreed by the plaintiff and others. However, the plaintiff instead of abiding the said arrangement filed the present suit. Basing on the above pleadings, the only issue that was settled by the trial Court was ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?’ To substantiate the claim, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined three more witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.34. Whereas, the first defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got examined one more witness as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.4. The trial Court upon appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence, though observed that the title of the plaintiff over the disputed 2 cents of land is not free from cloud, held that the plaintiff is established his possession over the disputed 2 cents of land and accordingly decreed the suit by granting permanent injunction. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence, held that as seen under Ex.A.1-sale deed, dated 13.4.1956, the plaintiff got a joint right over 2 cents of land and that the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the disputed property. Further the plaintiff admitted himself that he has got joint right over the disputed property and as per his evidence, defendants 2 and 3 purchased some site under Ex.A.2 on 15.6.1984 and since then, they have a right of passage in the disputed site. Further as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is clear that the schedule property is a joint property of plaintiff, defendants and other surrounding ryots. Considering the said evidence, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff who has a joint right over the property has no right to claim adverse possession over the suit schedule property and he has no right to ask for permanent injunction restraining the other joint owners to interfere with the suit schedule property and holding so, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Once the plaintiff himself admitted that the defendants are joint owners of the suit schedule property, which was set apart for common use and enjoyment of all the neighbouring owners, J.Veera Reddy, the maternal grandfather, who is said to have 1/9th share right in the well as well as Baru, cannot gift the said property with exclusive rights, except joint ownership. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. In view of the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court basing upon the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration to admit the second appeal. The second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 03, 2010 Tsr.