THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 550 of 2010 J U D G M E N T: This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants in the suit. The sole respondent, who is the plaintiff, has instituted the suit O.S.No. 33 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Bhainsa, seeking for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land of an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas situate in Survey No. 34 at Kharbala Village, Tanoor Revenue Division of Adilabad District. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the owner of the suit schedule property and has cultivated the suit land for a long time. Suddenly, the defendants entered the suit schedule land and interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants in the suit have no manner of right to enter the land and prevent the plaintiff from using the said land. The trial Court, therefore, has framed the 1st issue appropriately as under: “ Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land?” On behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses have been examined and the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1, while the defendants have examined five witnesses. The 1st defendant has examined himself as D.W.1. The plaintiff has also filed and got marked the original pattedar passbook as Ex.A1, a carbon copy of the pahani for the year 1994-95 as Ex.A2 and a carbon copy of the pahani for the year 1996-97 as Ex.A3. Since the defendants have set up a parallel claim to the property, they have also filed pattadar passbooks issued in their favour as Exs.B1 and B2. Copy of the pahani for the year 1953 has been filed by them as Ex.B3 and the pahanis for the years 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001 have been filed by them as Exs.B4 and B5. The learned Junior Civil Judge at Bhainsa, after an elaborate consideration of the material and evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the true owner of the suit schedule land and that he has been cultivating the same personally. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that the defendants have no right of any manner to interfere with the possession and right of the plaintiff to deal with the suit schedule property. Thus, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the defendants carried the matter by way of an appeal A.S.No. 6 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Nirmal. The same contentions have been re-canvassed before the Appellate Court. The defendants tried to establish before the Appellate Court that they are the true owners of the suit schedule land of Ac.0.37 guntas and hence, their interference with the suit schedule property cannot be termed as an illegal act. Once again the entire matter has been considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal and he has found as a fact that it is the plaintiff who is the true owner and that the defendants have failed to establish any right, title or interest with regard to the suit schedule land. Hence, the appeal has been dismissed. Therefore, the defendants have filed this Second Appeal. I have heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants raised several contentions, which, in substance, amount to re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below that it is the plaintiff, who is the true owner of the suit schedule property, is not liable to be shaken. All concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are the result of proper and correct appreciation of the material and evidence on record. There are no substantial grounds of law raised for me to entertain the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th June 2010 ksld