THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.758 of 1999 DATE: 03.02.2011 BETWEEN: Goturu Venkatamma .. Appellant And Jaggaiahgari Sri Ramulu and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.758 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11.03.1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet in A.S.No.1 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decree and judgment dated 06.11.1989 passed by the District Munsif, Nandalur in O.S.No.130 of 1985. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents. The plaintiff is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as ‘the plaintiff and the defendants’. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants for declaration that she has right of easementary way through “EF” passage mentioned in the plaint plan and for consequential perpetual injunction. Learned trial Court taking into consideration of Ex.A.1- agreement under which the predecessor-in-title of the defendants recognized the right of the plaintiff over the said passage and by drawing certain inferences from the report of the advocate commissioner to the effect that there is no other way to the plaintiff to pass through, decreed the suit. However, the first appellate Court reversed the finding holding that the description of “EF” passage furnished in the plaint plan is not correct. The measurement as per the plaint plan and the measurements as submitted to by the defendants are at variance, that the agreement dated 05.03.1961 relied upon by the plaintiff was not proved and by discarding the testimony of PW.2, who is one of the attesting witness for not supporting the version of the plaintiff and for not speaking about the contents of Ex.A.1- agreement. The learned first appellate Court also took into consideration that the learned Commissioner appointed by the trial Court about in his report not mentioned about the existence of passage passage and only site has been referred to in Ex.C.1 report. Basing on evidence, the learned first appellate Court arrived at a finding that the opinion expressed by the learned trial Court that there is no ingress or egress to the plaintiff except through “EF” passage is incorrect and that the evidence on record indicates that the plaintiff has alternative passages from her house to pass through. The learned first appellate court observed that the plaintiff through her oral and documentary evidence failed to establish that there was a specific passage in existence and that by using the same for prescribed period she acquired the right of easement. The findings put to challenge in the second appeal are the findings of fact, I absolutely see no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court while reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court. The findings are based on evidence and reasoning and no substantial questions of law involved for consideration in the Second Appeal. Therefore, in my view, the second appeal is not maintainable. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 03.02.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.758 of 1999 DATE: 03.02.2011