IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.982 of 2010 Between: Keethirai Balaji Panda ..... Appellant AND The State of A.P., rep., by the Collector, Srikakulam & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D. Ramalingaswami The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.982 of 2010 ORDER: This Second Appeal arises out of judgment dated 19.01.2010 in A.S.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2003 in O.S.No.110 of 1996. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit, which was initially filed in a representative capacity and subsequently converted into a suit filed in individual capacity for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a tank. The trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaint schedule property is under the management of the plaintiff or it is endowed property and it is only a tank vested with the Government? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 6. If so, to what relief?” After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit by rendering findings on all issues against the appellant. The appellate Court confirmed these findings by dismissing the suit. Thus, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellant failed to adduce proper evidence in order to prove his title over the tank in question. The only document of title filed by the appellant is Ex.A1 - Certified copy of registered Will dated 26.03.1928 executed by one Radhamani Panyani, which was not given weight by the Courts below as the appellant failed to file original will. At the hearing, Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Having gone through the judgments of the Courts below, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal, because the claim of the appellant for declaration of title was rejected on the ground that the evidence adduced by him is not sufficient to declare his title. The sufficiency or otherwise of evidence, it is trite does not give rise to substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Second Appeal, SAMP No.2183 of 2010 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2011 ES