HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 666 OF 2011 DATED 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Nadella Veera Raghavulu …….Appellant and Gattu Lakshmi ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 666 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No. 101 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit was contested by the appellant/defendant. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A2 were got marked. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.12 were got marked. The trial Court upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit through its judgment and decree dated 16-11-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 58 of 2010 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. The lower appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court through its judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011. Hence, the present second appeal by the appellant/defendant. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant while reiterating the grounds raised in the appeal submitted that the Courts below failed to consider the material and evidence on record in the proper perspective and therefore this appeal is liable to be allowed. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned Counsel on either side, be it noted that the scope of this Court under Sec. 100 C.P.C. is quite narrow. Therefore, within the ambit of the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 100 CPC, it is to be seen that as to whether any substantial questions of law raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the Memorandum of Grounds need consideration warranting interference by this Court in this second appeal. Time and again, the Supreme Court held that this Court is entitled to exercise its power under Section 100 CPC only when a substantial question of law arises in a second appeal for adjudication but not otherwise Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 713 a n d Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (2011) 1 SCC 673, I shall now proceed to examine the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties as well as the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below so as to see whether the findings recorded by them are justified in law and on fact. It is the contention of the appellant that the Courts below placing reliance on Exs.A.1 and A.2 erred in granting permanent injunction to the respondent/plaintiff; and that as the plaintiff sought permanent injunction, the burden is upon her to prove and establish that she is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are house site patta and Enjoyment Certificate which the appellant/defendant disputed that they are not genuine documents. If that be the case of the appellant/defendant, he would have taken the necessary steps to say that they are not genuine documents. But he failed to do so. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the appellant/defendant did not disclose that the respondent/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. As regards Exs.B.4 to B.6 which are sale deed and link documents, on the basis of which, the appellant contended that he raised a compound wall on the suit schedule property to get over vastudosham. But the fact remains that Exs. A.1 and A.2 are the documents issued by the concerned Revenue Officials which clearly establish that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. If the appellant/defendant feels that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not genuine documents, as stated above, it is for him to approach the proper forum and get them cancelled. As the matters stood thus, the trial Court rightly considered all the aspects in the proper perspective and recorded its findings basing on the evidence available on record and accordingly decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court upon reappraisal of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings arrived at by the trial Court and ultimately dismissed the appeal filed before it. Having due regard to the findings recorded by the courts below and for the reasons discussed herein before, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellant/defendant. Consequently, I do not see any question of law, much less a substantial question of law in this appeal warranting interference by this Court with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cots. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. Msnro