HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.1574 of 2011 Date: 16-12-2011 Between: Chennaboina Tirumalaiah s/o. Gopaiah and others .. Appellants and Matapally Chinna Balaiah s/o. Saidaiah and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri N. Ashok Kumar for Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 25-8-2011 in A.S.No.13/2008 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 27-6-2008 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, in O.S.No.199/2000. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit. The appellants are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction. Plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 have claimed permanent injunction in respect of Ac.0- 20 guntas in Sy.No.602, Ac.1-01 guntas in Sy.No.601 and Ac.0-21 guntas in Sy.No.602 of respectively, of Alagadapa village, Miryalaguda Mandal (for short “the suit property”). It is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that one Swaroopa Rani was the owner of the suit property which was sold in favour of one K. Venkateswarlu and that the said K. Venkateswarlu in turn sold the same in favour of the plaintiffs through a simple sale deed. It is their further case that the sale was validated under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") on 8-6- 1992 by issuing 13-B validation certificate under Exs.A-2 to A-4. As the defendants were allegedly interfering with their possession over the suit property, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendants have resisted the suit by claiming that their family is the owner and possessor of the suit property and that they have inherited the same from their father Chinaboina Gopaiah. In support of their plea, the plaintiffs examined PWs.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-40 on their side before the trial court. The defendants have filed Exs.B-1 to B-12 and examined DWs.1 to 4 and filed Exs.B-1 to B-12 on their side. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, they have filed Exs.A-41 to A-55 as additional evidence. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal and granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed the present Second Appeal. At the hearing, Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, strenuously contended that the appreciation of the evidence by the lower appellate Court is perverse. He has submitted that DW-4, the Tahsildar, has stated that the father of the defendants was in possession of Ac.2-20 guntas of land which forms part of the suit property and that in the face of the documentary evidence which includes the pahani for the year 1958-59 and also the pahanies for the subsequent years, marked as Exs.B-1 to B-12, the lower appellate Court committed a patent illegality in reversing the well considered Judgment of the trial Court. Opposing the above contentions, Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, urged that the pattadar passbook and the title deed filed by the respondents were not considered by the trial Court. He further submitted that Ex.A-47, which was filed as additional evidence before the lower appellate Court clinchingly establishes that the appellants/defendants are not in possession of the suit property and that therefore they were denied the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He submitted that the lower appellate Court has reappreciated the evidence properly and that even if two views are possible, this Court will not interfere in a Second Appeal unless such appreciation is found to be perverse. He submitted that the oral and documentary evidence available on record completely justified the finding of the lower appellate Court in favour of his clients. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the record shows that the revenue record such as pahanies and land revenue receipts have been filed by both the parties in support of their respective claims of being in possession. While the appellants/defendants have claimed title through inheritance, the respondents/plaintiffs have placed reliance on the simple sale deed dated 6-11-1974 and the validation certificates Exs.A-2 to A-4, issued under the Act. In a suit for permanent injunction, the main emphasis is on possession, while the Court may consider prima facie title of the parties. While the trial Court refused to consider the title of the respondents/plaintiffs on the ground that their vendors have not been examined, the lower appellate Court has placed reliance on the evidence concerning possession. As noted above, in a suit for injunction the predominant task of the Courts is to consider the possession of the parties. It is not in dispute that Exs.A-7 and A-8 are the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Ex.A-47 is the Memo issued by the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda wherein he has informed defendant No.1 in response to the application filed by him for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, to the effect that as the applicants (defendants) are not in possession though their names are recorded as pattadars, they are not entitled for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Under Rule 26(6) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, a title deed or passbook shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land. Even though no pattadar passbook and title deed have been issued in favour of plaintiff No.3, from Ex.A-47 it is evident that the defendants were denied issuance of the pattadar passbooks and the title deeds on the ground that they are not in physical possession of the suit property. The lower appellate Court placed heavy reliance on these aspects in reversing the Judgment of the trial Court. It is trite that in a Second Appeal, this Court will not reappreciate the evidence and where two views are possible, this Court will not interfere with the Judgment under appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, merely because another view is possible, unless the appreciation of the evidence is so perverse as no reasonable man will come to the conclusion as arrived at by the Courts below. From a careful consideration of the reasons given by the lower appellate Court, it cannot be said that it suffers from any patent illegality warranting interference in this Second Appeal. For the above mentioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the appellants/defendants are not precluded from filing a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. As a sequel, SAMP No.3458/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-12-2011 AM