THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.542 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant had two sons, by name Surappa, the husband of respondent No.1 herein, and Sunkanna, respondent No.2 herein. She filed O.S.No.173 of 2005 against them in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone stating that she owned an extent of Acs.5.45 cents of land in Survey No.285 of Kotrai Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District and that the respondents started interfering with her possession without any basis. The respondents filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to them, the suit schedule property as well as some other items were partitioned among the family members and the suit schedule property in two equal shares was allotted to them. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 29.04.2008. The appellant filed A.S.No.44 of 2008 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was dismissed on 20.10.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that admittedly, the suit schedule property is in the name of the appellant and there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to interfere with her possession. He contends that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court ignored this vital fact and dismissed the suit and the appeal on the basis of certain statements made by the appellant during the course of her cross- examination. The suit filed by the appellant was the one for injunction simplicitor. There was some dispute about the fact that it stands in her name. The respondents, however, pleaded that it was partitioned and they were given equal shares in it. The trial Court framed only one issue. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and one of her relations deposed as P.W.2. She filed Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and filed Exs.B1 to B3. The appellant claimed the relief of perpetual injunction against her son and wife of another deceased son. In case the appellant wanted to treat the suit schedule property as her own and to keep the same outside the purview of the enjoyment of the family, things would have been different altogether. She categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the suit schedule property was allotted in equal shares to the respondents in the family partition. The documents filed by the respondents clearly established that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the very basis for the appellant to seek the relief of injunction did not exist. She could have claimed the relief of injunction had she been in possession of the property without even holding proper title. In a way, the reverse of the circumstances existed in this case. She holds the title, but the possession is with the respondents. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have taken the correct view of the matter and no question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents are not looking after the appellant. It hardly needs any mention that both the respondents are under obligation to provide maintenance to the appellant, if she is living without any proper means. It is needless to mention that in case there is any failure on the part of the respondents to maintain the appellant, it shall be open to the appellant to approach the competent Court seeking maintenance. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 29.11.2010. kdl