THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No. 766 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Challa Siva Shankar for the appellant and Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana for the Caveator. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal directed against concurrent judgments dated 3-11-2000 of the Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur in O.S.No. 15 of 1995, as confirmed by the judgment dated 23-4-2010 of the VI Additional District Judge, Markapur in A.S.No. 138 of 2007. The suit was decreed and the reliefof permanent injunction granted in favour of the Appellant/plaintiff was confirmed in the appeal by the defendant. The appellant herein filed the suit for grant of a permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule property. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred A.S.No. 138 of 2007. By the judgment and decree dated 23- 4-2010, the lower appellate court confirmed the grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff concurring with the finding of the trial court with regard to the plaintiff’s possession but allowed the appeal partly modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court and preserving the liberty and right of the defendant to establish his claim for a share in the plaint schedule property and consequent relief, in separate proceedings. The lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the donor of the suit schedule property referred to in Exs.A1 and A2 which are A and B schedule property. Hence the appellate court observed that the appeal is allowed to the extent of preserving the liberty of the defendant to initiate separate legal proceedings for claiming a share in the plaint A and B schedule property. The singular grievance of the appellant as asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the manner in which the lower appellate court disposed of the appeal by stating that the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower court set aside and modified. The appellant’s counsel states that the defendant is taking advantage of the appellate order and trying to interfere with the appellant’s possession and enjoyment over the properties. The concluding and operative portion of the order of the lower appellate court reads as under: “In the result, the appeal shall be allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower court shall be set aside and modified the suit shall be decreed granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule properties by the plaintiff without prejudice to the right of the defendant to establish his claim of share and the consequential reliefs thereon in a court of law. Under the circumstances of the case each party do bear their own costs.” We find no error in the order of the lower appellate court, nor is there any ambiguity on the aspect that the permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff by the trial court was confirmed in appeal. There is no possibility of any misconstruction on this aspect and the defendant cannot assume that the plaintiff was denied the relief of permanent injunction on account of the appellate order. Merely because the lower appellate court used the expression that the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower court is set aside, an expression accurate in the context of the fact that the judgment and decree of the lower court is modified to the extent of preserving the liberty of the defendant to assert his share in the suit schedule property in separate legal proceedings, no case is made out for second appellate interference. No question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 19th August, 2010. GRR