THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No. 1096 of 2007 JUDGMENT : 1. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2004 in Appeal Suit No.24 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1999 in Original Suit No.143 of 1991 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction, were confirmed. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, and the respondents herein are the defendants, before the trial Court. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction stating that item nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property are his ancestral properties and the same have been in his continuous possession and enjoyment. Whereas, the defendants denied title and possession of the plaintiff over the schedule properties, by claiming their exclusive possession. 4. The trial court, upon considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie title and exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property, and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the first appellate court. The appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment confirming the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 5. There cannot be any dispute that, under the amended Section 100 C.P.C., a party aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate court has no absolute right of appeal. He can neither challenge the decree on a question of fact or on a question of law. The second appeal lies only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The word ‘substantial’ as qualifying ‘question of law’, means and conveys – of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important, considerable, fairly arguable, in contradiction with – technical, formal, or no substance, no consequence or academic only. A substantial question of law should directly and substantially affect the rights of the parties. A question of law can be said to be substantial between the parties if the decision in appeal turns one way or the other on the particular view of law. But, if the question does not affect the decision, it cannot be said to be substantial question between the parties. Recording a finding without any evidence on record; disregard or non- consideration of relevant or admissible evidence; taking into consideration irrelevant or inadmissible evidence; perverse finding- are some of the questions, which involve substantial questions of law. 6. Now, it has to be seen whether there is any substantial question of law, so as to admit the second appeal ? 7. In order to get the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that he has got prima facie title in respect of the schedule property and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the date of the suit and that balance of convenience or irreparable injury in his favour. It is equally well settled that the plaintiff must succeed or fail on the strength of his case. To know whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by both the parties. Item no.1 of plaint schedule is Ac.9.14 cents in R.C. No.22/2. Item no.2 of plaint schedule is Ac.4.72 cents in R.C. No.16/1. According to the plaintiff, defendants are not related to him. Out of item no.1, Ac.5.75 cents was sold away by his family. The balance of Ac.3.39 cents in item no.1 is inherited by him. This can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1. For the remaining extent, P.W.1 is relying on Ex.A1-pass book. Survey number of item no.1 does not find place in this document. As per Ex.A3-certified copy of resettlement register, Ac.9.14 cents of land stands in the name of father of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that they are the dayadees of plaintiff and in the partition 2/3rd share was allotted to father of the plaintiff and the remaining 1/3rd share was allotted to the first defendant. Two shares of plaintiff to an extent of Ac.5.75 cents was admittedly sold away by the plaintiff, his brother and father. An extent of Ac.0.39 cents out of 1/3rd share of the first defendant viz. Ac.3.39 cents, was occupied by road and the remaining extent of Ac.3.00 cents is in possession of the defendant. The other documents filed by the plaintiff do not show the title of the plaintiff. 8. As seen from the boundaries in Ex.B1, the northern boundary is shown as the land of defendant. Admittedly, Ex.B1 was executed by the plaintiff. Ex.B1 clearly goes to show that item no.1 of plaint schedule land belongs to defendants. With regard to the land in item no.2, it was gifted to mother of plaintiff to an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.4.72 cents which represents 2/3rd share of the plaintiff’s father. The case of defendants is that remaining 1/3rd share fell to them. If really father of plaintiff is owner of entire extent of Ac.4.72 cents, he would have gifted entire extent to his wife. Hence, the plaintiff failed to establish incidental title. With regard to possession, Exs.A4, A5, A6 and A7are filed. They do not go to show that immediately prior to the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property. Further, Ex.A7 is subsequent to filing of the suit. In the absence of evidence to show about the possession of the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit, he is not entitled for injunction against the defendants. 9. With regard to surname of the plaintiff and the defendants as ‘Mukkidammagari’, this aspect of the case is denied by the plaintiff. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A2 and B18, it is clear that the surname of the plaintiff and the defendants is ‘Mukkidammagari’. Therefore, the first appellate court rightly has not placed any implicit reliance on his evidence. 10. Both the courts gave a concurrent finding that the documents filed by the plaintiff do not establish his prima facie title over item nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The courts below also held that the documents filed by the plaintiff do not establish his exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property. The findings of the courts below are based upon the appreciation of the evidence on record, and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said findings of fact are perverse or contrary to the evidence on record so as to infer that there is a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, involved in this Second Appeal. Further more, no substantial question of law has been framed in the grounds of appeal, and all the grounds raised only relate to questions of fact, which have already been decided by the courts below concurrently. 11. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. However, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title of the appellant over the suit schedule property and other consequential reliefs. Accordingly, liberty is given to the appellant to file the comprehensive suit. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 2.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No. 1096 of 2007 2.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No. 1096 of 2007 2.2.2011 Between: Narasimha Reddy …Appellant And Narasappa & others. …Respondent