HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:740 OF 2010 Dated: 13.8.2010 Between: 1. A. Ramalingam died per L.Rs. ..Appellants And 1. W.S. Hanumantha Rao( Died per L.Rs). .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:740 OF 2010 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in A.S.No.164 of 1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 3.10.1997 passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.158 of 1994. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs before the Court below. Originally, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the 1st appellant herein for the relief of declaration to the suit schedule property and recovery of possession of the same. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the schedule property viz., a tiled house consisting of two rooms bearing No.12-13-1179. The father of the defendant was tenant of the suit property and after his demise, the defendant is residing therein as tenant of the plaintiffs. The defendant paid rents upto November, 1982 and thereafter, he failed to pay the same and thus, committed willful default. Hence, they filed RC No.133 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad for eviction of the defendant. The defendant filed a counter in that RC denying the ownership of the plaintiffs. On that, the learned Rent Controller having observed that he has no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute directed both the parties to approach the Civil Court and accordingly, closed the RC. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the above suit. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property and he is in possession of the suit property since more than 45 years and he became the owner of the property by way of adverse possession. In support of their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A22 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. On appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary, the Court below having observed that it is established that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and the defendant failed to establish his title basing on the adverse possession and he has no right to continue in the suit property any more, decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit property. Hence, the defendant carried the matter in appeal, during the pendency of which as the defendant died, his legal representatives came on record. On re- appreciation of evidence on record, the lower appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Court below and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present second appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The scope for interference with concurrent findings of the fact while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. is very limited. The material on record coupled with Exs.A1 to A22 establishes that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property. The findings of both the Courts below, which are in consonance with the evidence on record, are on sound reasoning and they are in proper perspective. Apart from that, the grounds raised in the appeal, do not constitute any substantial question of law. In view of this and in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I see no merits in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 13th August, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:740 OF 2010 13.08.2010