HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 353 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 28.01.2011 passed in A.S.No. 35 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2009 passed in O.S.No. 36 of 2008 by the Principal Junior Civil Jduge, Gurazala, Guntur District. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 36 of 2008. She filed O.S seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over item Nos. 1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties. That suit was decreed partly restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties by granting permanent injunction and the suit of the plaintiff against item No. 4 of the suit schedule land is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-plaintiff filed A.S.No. 35 of 2009 and the same was dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Apepal is field. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the survey number mentioned in Ex. A1 Will is nothing to do with survey numbers mentioned in Ex. B1 Gift deed as such the courts below ought not to have declined to grant the relief of injunction in respect of item No. 4 of suit schedule property. He also submits that the courts below failed to appreciate that on conjoint reading of recitals in Ex. A1 and entries in Ex. A3 Pattadar Passbook and the Ex. A4 true extract of Adangal establish that either the plaintiff or her testator are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property covered by Ex. A-4 as on the date of execution of the Will. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit partly. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that the appellant has failed to establish his right to claim permanent injunction in respect of Item No. 4 of the plaint schedule property. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the parties are at liberty to adjudicate their rights in respect of Item No. 4 of the plaint schedule property in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, is directed to dispose of the matter, in respect of item No. 4 of the plaint schedule property, in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in the Second Appeal as well as the observations made by the appellate Court in A.S. No. 35 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 15.04.2010 KA