THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.492 of 1999 DATE: 23.03.2011 BETWEEN: Podili Venkatesu and another .. Appellants And Puvvada Sree Ramamurthy and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.492 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.1998, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in A.S.No.92 of 1996 confirming the decree and judgment dated 15.04.1996, passed by the District Munsif, Avanigadda in O.S.No.231 of 1989. I have heard Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. For the sake of convenience the parties in O.S.No.231 of 1989 (appellants herein) are referred to as ‘the plaintiffs and defendants’. The defendants filed O.S.No.235 of 1987 for declaration of title in respect of the schedule mentioned property which is an extent of 0.30 cents and for consequential injunction. However, subsequently, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.231 of 1989 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.08.1981 allegedly executed by Sri Rama Murthy, the father of the defendants. They filed an interlocutory application for grant of temporary injunction in the said suit. According to the defendants, after obtaining temporary injunction in the said suit, the plaintiffs’ occupied the possession of the schedule mentioned property and therefore, in the suit filed by the defendants, they filed amendment petition seeking to amend the relief of recovery of possession instead of injunction which was asked for and the said amendment was allowed. The learned trial Court rendered a common judgment dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs i.e. O.S.No.235 of 1987 and decreeing the suit filed by the defendants i.e. O.S.No.231 of 1989. The trial Court referring to the agreement to sell dated 02.08.1981-Ex.P.1 held that within a month from the date of the said agreement to sell and in terms thereof, sale deed had to be executed and the plaintiffs did not take any steps till 1987 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The learned first appellate Court also by rendering common judgment in A.S.No.92 of 1996 and A.S.No.5 of 1998 concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Court. In this second appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that both the courts below went wrong in appreciating the evidence on record and rendered erroneous finding that Ex.B.2-agreement to sell dated 02.08.1981 is a forged document and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot enforce any right under the said agreement. The learned counsel wants this Court to examine the correctness of the findings of fact and to reverse the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. This Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of C.P.C. can entertain the second appeal only if there is any substantial question of law arises for consideration. In the instant case, the findings being the findings of fact which have become final in view of the judgments rendered by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court, this Court will not interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact. This appeal, therefore, is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ Date: 23.03.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.492 of 1999 DATE: 23.03.2011