THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.134 of 2011 Dated 16th September, 2011 Between: Peddi Annapurna …Appellant And Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mellacheruvu Village of Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District …Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri P.Nageswar Rao Counsel for respondent: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 07.12.2009, in A.S.No.6 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, at Suryapet, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 27.12.2006, in O.S.No.255 of 2002, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet is confirmed. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit filed for permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property. It is her pleaded case that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property, bearing H.No.9-72 of Mellacheruvu, that on 12.07.2000, her father gifted the suit schedule property to her through registered document and that since then she has been in possession of the same. It is her further pleaded case that the respondent mutated her name as owner in the Panchayat records and that the respondent was trying to dismantle the compound wall on the eastern side of the suit schedule property alleging that it was constructed without permission and by encroaching public bazaar. She pleaded that the compound wall was constructed about 20 years back, after obtaining permission from the respondent and that the respondent has issued notice on 02.07.2002 for demolition. The respondent filed a written statement denying the claim of the appellant that she was the lawful owner of the suit schedule property. The respondent has alleged that the appellant has encroached the public bazaar and constructed compound wall on the eastern side without obtaining permission. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief?” The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 on her side. She has filed Exs.A1, registered gift deed. On behalf of the respondent, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. The Court below has marked Exs.C1 to C6 on behalf of the Commissioner. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit by rendering a finding that the appellant failed to make out a case of prima facie ownership over the property. A finding was also rendered that Ex.C6, Commissioner’s report, and Ex.C5, sketch map, clearly show that the appellant has encroached the public property and raised a compound wall without permission. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the said findings in the appeal filed by the appellant. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the definition of Section 2(3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, no permission is required for construction of a compound wall, whose height does not exceed two meters. In my opinion, this issue, which was not raised before the Courts below, cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage for the first time. At any rate, the appellant will not succeed even if this ground is accepted. The Courts below concurrently found on the Commissioner’s report that the appellant has encroached the public property and raised a compound wall around it. As the findings of the Courts below fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence, this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence in order to arrive at a different conclusion in a second appeal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the second appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, S.A.M.P.No.320 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th September, 2011 VGB