THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.344 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed O.S.No.676 of 1998 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0.48 cents of land, in survey No.287 of Gonavaram Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District. He stated that the suit schedule property accrued to him from his ancestors in the partition that took place about 25 years back. According to him, he was issued pattedar pass book by the Revenue Authorities, and the defendant, who is his agnate, having sold his share of the property ten years ago, is trying to interfere with his possession along with supports. The respondent filed a written statement, opposing the suit. According to him, the total extent of land in survey No.287 is Ac1.93 cents, and out of it, Ac.0.96 cents fell to the branch of himself and the plaintiff. In the further partition, Ac.0.48 cents is said to have fallen to the share of the brother of the plaintiff and all his brothers have executed a sale deed for that land in favour of one Mr.Hussain Saheb. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 26.08.2004. He filed A.S.No.38 of 2004 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kurnool at Nandyal. The appeal was dismissed on 07.12.2009. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard Sri V.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Kopula Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the appellant herein was the one for injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed only one issue, namely, “Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction?” On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to 5 were filed, and on behalf of the respondent, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were filed. The suit was dismissed and so with the appeal. The appellant admitted that the respondent is his agnate and their respective branches of the family got the property, in the family partition. The father of the appellant and father of the respondent are brothers. The said composite family got an extent of Ac.0.96 cents, in an earlier partition. In the further partition, the branch of the appellant got Ac.0.48 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.0.48 cents has fallen to the share of the respondent. Though the appellant presented his case as though he got Ac.0.48 cents of land, and he is still in possession and enjoyment thereof, he failed to establish the same. PWs.2 and 3, who are examined by him, are strangers to family. Hardly would they be able to throw any light on the contentions raised. An important piece of evidence placed before the trial Court by the respondent was Ex.B.8. Under that, the appellant and his three brothers executed a sale deed in favour of one Mr.Hussain Saheb. With that the entire case of the appellant virtually crumbles. Added to that, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders in favour of the respondent under Ex.B.5 virtually neutralizing the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant. The trial Court and lower Appellate Court have analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in a perfect manner. No question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.11.2010. GJ