THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.785 OF 2010 DT.27.09.2011 Between: Nadella Stanikeswara Rao … Appellant And Musunuri Rama Devi & ors. … Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sri N.Sriram Murthy Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.785 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.461/2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, which was dismissed, against which an appeal filed by the appellant in A.S.No.41 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court O.S.No.461/2007. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was purchased under Ex.A.1 Sale Deed, dated 15-3-1974 in the name of the appellant/plaintiff himself, and Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by his grandfather vide Ex.A.2/registered Sale Deed, dated 24-4-1986. As the sister of the appellant, the respondent No.1 herein was interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, the appellant filed the suit O.S.No.461/2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, dated 17-09-2009, which was dismissed, against which, the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. It is stated that the title shall follow the possession and the defendant has not established her possession. The trial Court basing on, both oral and documentary evidence, held that the revenue authorities have granted pattedar passbooks and record of title deed in favour of the 1st defendant and that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession as on the date of filing of the suit, and therefore, denied the relief of permanent injunction. It is further to be noticed that pattedar passbooks were not cancelled. On re-appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the appellate Court confirmed the same. In view of the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below, I do not see any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in the appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.ESWARAIAH,J) DATE: 27.09.2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.785 OF 2010 DATE: 27.09.2011 GRK