HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.104 OF 2004 DATED: 13.07.2011 BETWEEN: Pagidimarri Rama Kotaiah @ Rama Koti and others .. Appellants And Pagidimarri Chandra Mouli and others .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.104 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 26.08.2003 passed by the III Additional District Judge-cum- I Fast Tract Court at Nalgonda in A.S.No.37 of 2000 confirming the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2000 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal in O.S.No.3 of 1998. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties. For the convenience sake, the parties will be referred as ‘the plaintiffs and the defendants’. The brief facts necessary for considering the second appeal may be stated as follows: The plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land of an extent of 28 ½ guntas in Survey No.234. The contention of the defendants is that the second defendant purchased Ac.1.25 ½ guntas of land from the first plaintiff and defendant No.1 in Survey No.234 and that the plaintiffs on account of some disputes with the defendants gave incorrect boundaries and made a false claim in respect of 28 ½ guntas of land in the total extent of Ac.1.25 ½ guntas. The question arose before the trial Court was as to whether the plaintiffs could be able to establish their exclusive possession and enjoyment in respect of 28 ½ guntas of land. The learned trial Court upon considering the evidence of the parties, more particularly the boundaries furnished by them of their respective lands in the evidence adduced by them came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are unable to prove their exclusive possession of 28 ½ guntas of land in Survey No.234. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to locate their land within the specified boundaries. The learned first appellate Court on reassessment of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and also held that the plaintiffs failed to locate 28 ½ guntas of land within the specified boundaries. Admittedly, defendant No.2 purchased Ac.1.25 ½ guntas of land from the first plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and this fact is borne out from Ex.B.6 statement of the first plaintiff recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer during the course of regularization proceedings. The purchase made by the second defendant of an extent of Ac.1.25 ½ guntas was under simple sale deed and the said transaction was subsequently regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in the name of the defendant No.2. Though, the plaintiffs also adduced documentary evidence in proof of their possession and enjoyment of certain land under Survey No.234, the crucial question which was considered by both the Courts below was that they failed to establish the identity of the schedule mentioned land. The second defendant would be able to establish by the requisite documentary evidence, namely Ex.A.4, A.8 and A.9 pahanies to the effect that the land of an extent of A.1.25 ½ guntas held by him is denoted by revenue authorities after sub-division by bit Nos. 6 and 8. Whereas the land of 28 ½ guntas held by the plaintiff No.1 is denoted as bit No.5. In any event, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have made a false claim of the land belonging to the second defendant by furnishing false boundaries. It is therefore, obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to establish that the plaint schedule site existed separately to that of the land of the first defendant and they have not made any false claim, but they failed to discharge the said burden. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiffs are not able to establish the identity of the plaint schedule site. This Court while exercising it’s jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. in deciding the second appeal will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, unless they are perverse. In the instant case, the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence and reasoning. This Court will not interfere with the said findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below as no substantial question of law is involved for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2003 passed by the III Additional District Judge (I Fast Tract Court), at Nalgonda in A.S.No.37 of 2000. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 13.07.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.104 OF 2004 DATE: 13.07.2011