THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.776 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff, who filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property (for short “the subject land”). It was the contention of the defendants before the trial court that the subject land was an endowment land and they are Matadhipathis. But, however, the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, holding that the plaintiff proved his possession from 1983 onwards and he got title by adverse possession and the defendants have not established that they are Matadhipathis and the subject land is an Endowment land, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants preferred A.S.No.8 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. Insofar as the contention of the defendants that the subject land belongs to the Endowment Department and they are Matadhipathis, there is no evidence to show that the defendants are hereditary of Mahanthu Matam and, therefore, the question of application of the provision of Section 2(8)(ii) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 does not arise, as the suit is between private individuals but not between the Endowment Department and private individual and the suit was filed simplicitor for grant of permanent injunction basing on possession. It is the contention of the defendants that the trial court recorded the finding stating that the plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession without framing any proper issue. I am of the opinion that any finding given in a suit for permanent injunction will not be treated as resjudicata in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the appellants herein-defendants and admittedly, the Endowment Department is not a party and it is always open to the Endowments Department to take appropriate action if the said property belongs to it. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration to admit the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 28-08-2009 Prv