THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.627 of 2010 ORDER: The appellant filed O.S.No.149 of 2004 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, a house on a site. She pleaded that the site was allotted to her by the revenue authorities as an incentive for undergoing family planning operation and that the 5th respondent started interfering with the building at the instance of respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 9. It was also stated that the 5th respondent collected a sum of Rs.8,500/- as penalty for making construction unauthorizedly. The suit was contested by the 5th respondent alone. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 31.08.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.24 of 2007 in the Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 08.02.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the notice was served upon the 5th respondent, it has not chosen to enter appearance. The relief claimed by the appellant was the one of injunction simplicitor. On her behalf, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B,5 were filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has urged several grounds, this Court does not feel any necessity to deal with the same. The reason is that the building has since been demolished. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the demolition was resorted to contrary to law and even before expiry of period of limitation for preferring this second appeal. Since the scope of the suit and the appeal arising out of it is very limited, those questions cannot be gone into. If the appellant is so advised, she can file a suit for the relief of declaration of title and consequential reliefs. In such an event, the various observations made in the judgment rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court cannot be treated as final. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to pursue other remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.627 of 2010 Date: 18.08.2010 JSU