THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU S.A. No. 573 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 45 of 2006 dated 28.4.2008 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, whereunder the judgment and the decree made in O.S. No. 69 of 1996 dated 7.6.2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar decreeing the suit for injunction was confirmed and appeal was dismissed. Appellants are the defendants. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent laid the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as contended by the defendants? 3. To what relief? On behalf of respondent-plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-69 were marked. Likewise, on behalf of the appellants-defendants, DWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to 30 were marked. On behalf of the Court, Exs.X-1 to X-8 were marked. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court recorded finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. Therefore, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-defendants carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No. 45 of 2006 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The appellate Court, after perusing the judgment of the trial Court and other material placed before it, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present second appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy strenuously contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court carried away by mere surmises as to recording the finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. In fact, no such categorical finding was recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Further, the trial Court recorded a finding that to prove that the defendants are in possession of the property, Exs.B-1to B-12 pahanies were filed. However, it came to the conclusion that those findings were recorded on the basis of an order passed by the M.R.O. which was reversed thereafter by the Joint Collector. Therefore, it must be deemed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit and absolutely there is no concrete evidence, whether documentary or oral, to say that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintif Sri Mahipathi Rao, while supporting the judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court, stated that both the Courts have held concurrently in favour of the respondent-plaintiff that he is in possession of the property and it is a finding of fact with which this Court cannot interfere in the second appeal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the judgment and other material made available on record. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal is, whether the trial Court or the appellate Court could have given a finding as to possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit on the mere fact that the revenue records were altered as per the orders passed by the M.R.O. and the said order was reversed by the appellate authority i.e. Joint Collector? While recording a finding as to possession in a suit of this nature, the trial Court is supposed to record a specific finding as to possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit, based on oral and documentary evidence. In this case, no such effort was made either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. Section 33 of the Inams Abolition Act itself contemplates that on mere granting of Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Inams Abolition Act, the rights if any of thirdy party do not extinguish under the A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, unless the tenant has surrendered his rights as contemplated under Section 19. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have lost sight of the crux of the matter that requires to be answered. In view of the fact that there is no categorical finding and there is no evidence to that effect let in by the plaintiff, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have committed an error in granting decree of injunction. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2006 passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 69 of 1996 as confirmed by the appellate Court in A.S.No. 45 of 2006 dated 28.4.2008 are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside, the suit stand dismissed and the second appeal is allowed. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 18-12-2009 MVB.