THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.531 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The defendant is the appellant. The suit being O.S.No.5 of 1985 on the ﬁle of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, ﬁled by Kasi Ramaswamy (since deceased) for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the appellant herein (hereinafter, defendant) in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.34 cents (items 1 to 3) in Mummidivaram Village was decreed on 20.11.2007. After the death of Kasi Ramaswamy, his wife Kasi Gangavathi came on record as legal representative. Defendant’s appeal thereagainst being A.S.No.2 of 2008 was dismissed on 28.03.2011 by the Court of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, conﬁrming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The case of the plaintiﬀ is that the defendant is his wife; the suit schedule property is self-acquired property, which was purchased by him while working in State Bank of India, but the sale deeds were obtained in the name of the defendant. When he wanted to raise a loan from the bank, the suit schedule property was to be given as a collateral security. In that context, the defendant executed a Khararnama on 10.05.1982 in favour of the plaintiﬀ expressing no objection for re- conveying the property in his name. Thereafter, due to diﬀerences between the plaintiﬀ and the defendant, she refused to re-convey the property but the property has been in possession of the plaintiﬀ and he alone used to supervise the cultivation. The defendant had no capacity to purchase the property and with the help of her supporters, she is trying to interfere with the property. After the death of the plaintiﬀ, his wife Kasi Gangavathi ﬁled amendment application to the eﬀect that after the death of the ﬁrst plaintiﬀ, she alone inherited the properties. The defendant opposed the suit claiming the property to be her ‘Stridhana’ and she asserted that she alone paid the sale consideration. The trial Court framed three issues. The plaintiﬀ examined as many as ten (10) witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A37. On her behalf, the defendant examined ﬁve (5) witnesses and marked Exs.B1 to B8. On considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, the trial Court recorded findings to the effect that items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties are owned by Kasi Ramaswamy; the defendant is not the owner of the properties; and that he alone is in possession of the property. In view of these ﬁndings, the suit was decreed, which was conﬁrmed by the ﬁrst appellate Court. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the Khararnama set up by the plaintiﬀ was not executed by the defendant and that under Exs.A1 and A2, it is the defendant, who purchased the properties. He would nextly contend that the appellant was in possession of the properties and that her husband was staying with her and therefore, grant of injunction is not supported by any evidence. He also would submit that when the property owned by the defendant is ‘Stridhana’, the loan cannot be allowed to raise. This matter was initially called for admission on 30.09.2011. At that stage, counsel for the respondent- plaintiﬀ brought to the notice of this Court that in the execution proceedings, the matter was at an advanced stage and the case has been posted before the lower Court for recovery of delivery of property. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the defendant sold away the property to the third parties against whom the Execution Petition was ﬁled for delivery. Therefore, this Court adjourned the matter observing that pendency of the Second Appeal does not preclude the Court below to proceed with the proceedings. Today, when the matter is called, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit schedule property has been delivered to the respondent, Kasi Gangavathi on 30.09.2011. Even though the property has already been delivered to the plaintiﬀ, this Court, after perusing the judgments of the Courts below, is convinced that the entire dispute turned on the facts. The plaintiﬀ brought in convincing evidence on record to show that it is Kasi Ramaswamy, who purchased the property. Such being the case, merely because Exs.A1 and A2-sale deeds are obtained in the name of the defendant, the plaintiﬀ cannot be non-suited. The Second Appeal does not involve any question of law much less a substantial question. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 7th December 2011 RRB