HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2010 made in A.S.No. 94 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 522 of 2004 passed by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Defendant No. 1 in the Suit is the appellant herein and the first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No. 522 of 2004 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. That suit was decreed with costs as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, 1st defendant filed A.S.No. 94 of 2010 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the court below. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed the present Second Appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the court below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by him viz., Exs. B1 to B4 and it went wrong in thinking that the verification of title even in a limited sense need not be taken, when two suits are pending in different courts relating the title over the schedule property. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Be that as it may, in my opinion the trial court has considered the matter objectively and decreed the suit holding that since the plaintiff-first respondent herein adduced copious evidence both oral and documentary to establish her title as well as possession, on the date of filing of the suit, the evidence on record is replete to uphold the plaintiff’s possession on the date of filing of the suit besides her title, and the same was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 04.03.2011 KA