HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.Nos.1194 of 1999, 1195 of 1999 & 1196 of 1999 Dated 17-2-2011 S.A.No.1194 of 1999: Between: Deergasi Rama Rao and others. …Appellants. And: Konchada Apparao. …Respondent. S.A.No.1195 of 1999: Between: Deergasi Rama Rao and others. …Appellants. And: Peradala Adinarayana. …Respondent. S.A.No.1196 of 1999: Between: Deergasi Dalamma. …Appellant. And: Konchada Apparao and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.Nos.1194 of 1999, 1195 of 1999 & 1196 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: The 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.130 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Palasa is the appellant in the second appeal No.1196 of 1999. She filed the suit in respect of the vacant site which is mentioned as item No.2 in the schedule appurtenant to the thatched house, seeking a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. After she filed the suit, the defendant No.1 (1st defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1985) filed O.S.No.94 of 1986 and 2nd defendant (2nd defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1985) filed O.S.No.106 of 1986 seeking permanent injunction. The trial Court conducted a joint trial and rendered judgments decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff (plaintiff in O.S.No.130 of 1985) and dismissing the suits filed by the defendants (defendants in O.S.No.130 of 1985). Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed A.S.No.30 of 1996 and 31 of 1996 respectively which were heard and disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompet. The learned Senior Civil Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that since the first plaintiff in O.S.No.130 of 1985 gave false recitals regarding item No.2, she is not entitled for injunction. Accordingly, by allowing both the appeals, set aside the decree and judgment in O.S.Nos.130 of 1985 and 106 of 1986 dated 29-12-1995. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.130 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, 1st defendant (1st defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1985) filed A.S.No.32 of 1996 which was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. Aggrieved by the said judgments, the defendants and plaintiff respectively filed these three second appeals. Appeal in S.A.No.1194 of 1999 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1999 in A.S.No.30 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. Appeal in S.A.No.1195 of 1999 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1999 in A.S.No.31 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. Appeal in S.A.No.1196 of 1999 is filed against the decree and judgment dated 31-3-1999 in A.S.No.32 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, I have beard Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. For the convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as first plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as they were arrayed in O.S.No.130 of 1985. The suit is in respect of vacant site appurtenant to the house of the 1st plaintiff and according to her, she purchased the same under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dated 13-8-1963 and item No.2 site is behind the house. She claimed in the suit that she had been in possession and enjoyment of item No.2 of the schedule mentioned site from the date of her purchase from her vendor Pedda Tavudu. The defendants opposed the claim by contending inter-alia that the plaintiff-Dalemma is the wife of china Tavudu and as can be seen from the copy of registered sale deed supplied to them, she was shown as wife of late Pedda Tavudu. Their contention is that the entire document Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 13-8-1963 was fictitiously brought into existence in the name of his wife by the husband China Tavudu with malafide intention for the reasons best known to him. The defendants also disputed the contents and measurements mentioned in the sale deed and according them, the said sale deed is not binding on them. Before the trial Court, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and examined two other witnesses on her behalf and marked Ex.A.1 sale deed whereas the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.2 and one Ippili Apparao was examined as D.W.3 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. The learned trial Court basing on the evidence of the 1st defendant who is examined as D.W.1 who admitted that the husband of the plaintiff is Pedda Tavudu gave a finding that as per the recitals of Ex.A.1 sale deed also, the plaintiff is the wife of Pedda Tavudu and accordingly held that the contention put forth by the defendants is not correct and the plaintiff is the wife of Pedda Tavudu but not Chinna Tavudu. The trial Court further held that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the second item of the sale deed Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff in her evidence stated that along with item No.1, she purchased item No.2 which is a vacant site measuring 18 x 90 cubits under Ex.A.1 sale deed and she has been in possession of the same. P.W.2 is the first attestor of Ex.A.1 sale deed and the second attestor died. P.W.2 Dubasi Adinarayana was examined to prove the signature of the 2nd attestor. Plaintiff also examined one P.G.Behara a resident of the same street and she had categorically deposed before the trial court that the suit schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff since 13 years prior to her giving evidence before the Court. She also gave the boundaries in his evidence which tally with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1 sale deed. Whereas the defendants 1 and 2 were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 on their behalf and they have stated before the trial Court that Ex.A.1 document is fictitious document and it is not binding on them. They also examined one I.Apparao but the said witness is not resident of the same village and he admitted in his evidence that he is the resident of Kapu Temburu. The defendants did not file any documents either to prove their title or possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held basing on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff that the plaintiff could be able to establish her title to the property as well as her possession over the property under Ex.A.1 sale deed since the date of her purchase and decreed the suit. However, the learned first appellate Court taking into consideration certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the cross-examination regarding the boundaries, held that the plaintiff got mentioned wrong schedule in Ex.A.1 sale deed and therefore, she is not entitled for permanent injunction I am aware that first appellate Court is the final Court as to the decision on fact and this Court while dealing with the second appeal will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court and this Court can interfere in the second appeal only when any substantial question of law is involved for consideration. However, it is also well settled that when the findings of the first appellate Court are either perverse or not based on evidence on record or contrary to the settled principles regarding the burden of proof, this Court can interfere with the findings of fact and can set aside them in the second appeal. Here is a case where without there being any evidence on behalf of the appellants, in proof of their title and possession or disproving the title or possession of the plaintiff, the 1st appellate Court reversed the well reasoned finding recorded by the learned trial court without assigning any cogent reasons. The finding regarding the reversal of the judgment of the trial Court by the 1st appellate Court is contrary to the evidence on record and also it is perverse. In civil cases when both parties adduce evidence, the Court has to render a decision basing on preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, the oral and documentary evidence is enough to record a finding in favour of the plaintiff for granting the relief of permanent injunction. Apart from Ex.A.1 marking in respect of item No.2 of the above mentioned property the plaintiff examined one of the attestors to prove sale deed and also independent witness to prove her possession about the schedule mentioned property. P.Ws.2 and 3 had categorically stated in their evidence that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property for a period of more than 30 years. The sale deed was executed by the vendor in favour of the plaintiff on 13-8-1963, it was long prior to the filing of the suit and when no litigation was contemplated between the parties Therefore, it is not possible to accept the finding recorded by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff obtained Ex.A.1 sale deed from her vendor with false recitals relating to the item No.2 mentioned in the said sale deed. The finding is imaginary and being perverse it is set aside in the second appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge in A.S.No.32 of 1996 is set aside and judgment passed by the District Munsif in O.S.130 of 1985 is confirmed wherein the learned District Munsif granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the schedule mentioned property. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ Justice R.KANTHA RAO Dated 17-02-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.Nos.1194 of 1999, 1195 of 1999 & 1196 of 1999 Dated 17-2-2011