THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.600 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.481 of 1994 on the file of the II Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.1-94 cents in Sy.No.347/4 (old Sy.No.347/B) of Vepanjeri revenue village, Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree, dated 13-08-1998, against which, the appellant filed A.S.No.191 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, which was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 09-11-2009. Against which, the present Second Appeal is filed. It is the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff got the suit property under DKT patta granted by the Government in the year 1954 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. Originally, the suit survey number was 347/3B, but it has been changed as 347/4. As the defendant is interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question, they filed the suit in O.S.No.481 of 1994. It is the case of the defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land covered by Sy.Nos.347/3A and 3C and the plaintiffs gave boundaries in the suit relating to the land covered by Sy.No.347/3A. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court goes to show that both parties admitted that Sy.No.347/3B is co-relating to Sy.No.347/4. As there was a dispute with regard to identification of the land, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and as per the sketch filed by the Advocate Commissioner, the northeastern corner of Subramanyam Naidu’s land is sub- division No.4 and to its south sub-division No.3 is there. There is a road leading to Kalepalle village running through sub-division No.1, sub-division No.3 and sub-division No.4. The plaint sketch is also tallying with the physical features of the sketch plan of the Advocate Commissioner except north side of the plaint sketch. Therefore, the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit holding that the suit land is different and distinct from the land claimed by the defendant and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint are more or less tallying with the Advocate Commissioner’s report. Further, the decree obtained by the defendant in O.S.No.612 of 1982 is in respect of Sy.No.347/3A, which was without any boundaries and, therefore, under the guise of the said decree, the defendant cannot claim the property in question. Further, during the course of arguments before the trial court, learned counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the defendant has no claim in Sy.No.347/4 but he is disputing with regard to the boundaries of the suit land. As a matter of fact, the boundaries mentioned in the suit land are clearly tallying with the field measurement book copy relating to Sy.No.347 filed by the defendant himself, which was marked as Ex.B-1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the property in question is the same property in the suit in O.S.No.612 of 1982, in which the defendant obtained decree. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly decreed the suit. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I am of the opinion that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 06-08-2010 Prv