THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU SECOND APPEAL No.904 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed in A.S.No.79 of 2003 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.528 of 1995 by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein/defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein, as plaintiffs, laid the suit O.S.No.528 of 1995 before the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein viz. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector, Nellore, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Muthukuru Rural Mandal, Nellore, from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e. the lands in an extent of Ac.22.98 cents in R.S.No.73 (old Sy.No.67/P), Ac.20.83 in R.S.No.80/1 (old Sy.No.67/P) and Ac.8.99 in R.S.No.81 (old Sy.No.67/P) situated at Amudalapadu Village, Muthukuru Mandal of Nellore District. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and it was their case that the suit lands were classified as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ in the revenue records and the plaintiffs have not been in possession of the said lands and have no right whatsoever over the said lands. The trial Court, on appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, dismissed the suit, on 21.03.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2003 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, who, after detailed consideration of the matter, agreed with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal on 23.12.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the ryotwari passbooks issued in favour of the appellants would prove the appellants’ possession of the suit schedule property, but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not consider the same in right perspective. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, as a substantial question of law, pales into insignificance in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellants were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Both the Courts below, having considered the matter in detail, found that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was subsequently set aside by the Estates Abolition Tribunal in the year 1974 and the same was confirmed by this Court in the writ petition as well as the writ appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, and concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to show that they were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants stated that in view of the scheme formulated by the Government, the petitioners are entitled to seek regularization of the suit schedule property in their favour. If that be so, it is always open for the petitioners to workout their remedies as available to them before the authorities concerned. The second appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 27th November, 2009. IBL