THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL Nos.1026 and 1030 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are filed against the common judgment and decree dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama in A.S.Nos.10 of 2008 and 10 of 2009, whereby the appeals filed by the appellant herein have been dismissed confirming the common judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, decreeing O.S.No.107 of 2001 filed by the respondent herein for permanent injunction and dismissing O.S.No.113 of 2001 filed by the appellant herein for the very same relief. The appellant herein, who claims to be the second wife of Konidena Venkateswara Rao, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 2001 and defendant in O.S.No.107 of 2001. The respondent herein, who claims to be the nephew of the said Venkateswara Rao, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2001 and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.113 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.107 of 2001. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.107 of 2001 for perpetual injunction stating that his maternal uncle Venkateswara Rao married one Tripuramba, but she lived with him for about two months, deserted him and again married another person. After the desertion of the first wife, Venkateswara Rao married the defendant, who also lived with him for about four months and went away to her parents’ village. Few months thereafter, the defendant married one Mothukuri Subba Rao of Bodavada Manda Gunta Village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District and has been living with him in the said village. Thereafter, Venkateswara Rao did not marry again and lived alone in Kammavaripalem Village. The plaintiff and his parents rendered all services to the said Venkateswara Rao, as the mother of the plaintiff is the sister of the said Venkateswara Rao. Therefore, Venkateswara Rao developed love and affection towards the plaintiff and voluntarily executed Ex.A.1- Will, dated 24.04.2000 bequeathing the plaint schedule properties in his favour and died on 08.05.2000. The plaintiff performed the obsequies of Venkateswara Rao with his own money. During his lifetime, Venkateswara Rao obtained loan from Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited (PACS). On the death of Venkateswara Rao, the plaintiff succeeded the property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue authorities also issued Ex.A.2 - pattadar passbook and title deed to the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and incorporated his name in the revenue records. With regard to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the Gram Panchayat is collecting the house tax from the plaintiff. Further, there was no marital relationship between Venkateswara Rao and the defendant till the date of the death of Venkateswara Rao. After coming to know about the death of Venkateswara Rao, the defendant came to the village and disputed the right of the plaintiff. Hence, he filed the above suit. Pending the said suit, he filed I.A.No.487 of 2001 and obtained temporary injunction and the said orders were continued to be in force. The defendant, who contested the suit by filing a written statement, also filed O.S.No.113 of 2001 for permanent injunction with identical pleas stating that her marriage with Venkateswara Rao was performed on 20.08.1978 and they are issue less; that her husband died intestate leaving behind her as his sole legal heir; that she inherited the entire estate of her husband and has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in her own right; that since she is issueless, the plaintiff got eye sore to grab the schedule property taking advantage of her loneliness; that the plaintiff got strong following in the village; that the said Will dated 24.04.2000 was forged and created with a malafide intention to cause serious loss to her and that she performed the obsequies of her husband and removed her mangalsutra, bangles and pasupu kumkuma and living as widow of Venkateswara Rao. The plaintiff, who was arrayed as second defendant in O.S.No.113 of 2001, contested the said suit by filing a written statement in the same lines as that of in O.S.No.107 of 2001. Both the suits were clubbed together and necessary issues were framed in the said suits. On behalf of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined four more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. On behalf of the defendant, she examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined two more witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.15. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, observed that P.Ws.2 to 5 supported the case of the plaintiff, whereas D.Ws.2 and 3 supported the case of the defendant; that Exs.B.1 to B.3 i.e., copy of the marriage receipt issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer of Sri Laxmi Padmavathi Venkateswara Swamy Temple of Vykuntapuram, Tenali, dated 20.08.1978; registered sale deed dated 11.07.1977 in the name of Konidena Venkateswara Rao in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and the Co-operative Kissan Credit Pass Book issued by the PACS in the name of Venkateswara Rao in respect of the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- availed by him on item No.1 of the plaint schedule land respectively were not disputed; that Exs.B.4 and B.5 are the house tax receipts issued in the name of Venkateswara Rao for assessment Nos.253 and 340 and that in the plaint schedule of O.S.No.107 of 2001, the assessment number of item No.2 of the plaint schedule house was mentioned as 2-86, whereas in the plaint schedule of O.S.No.113 of 2001 the assessment number of item No.2 of the plaint schedule house was mentioned as 253. The trial Court further observed that to prove the possession, the plaintiff filed the pattadar pass book under Ex.A.2; water tax receipt under Ex.A.3; receipt dated 24.03.2001 issued by the PACS under Ex.A.4 and adangals under Exs.A.6 to A.9; that the plaintiff also examined P.Ws.2 and 4-attestors and P.W.3-scribe of the Will –Ex.A.1, and proved the Will, which clearly establish that the plaintiff has been in possession over the suit schedule property; that the defendant miserably failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property, and accordingly decreed O.S.No.107 of 2001 and dismissed O.S.No.113 of 2001. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence and material available on record, by the impugned common judgment dismissed the appeals confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court in all respects. Hence, these second appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that both the Courts below misconstrued the evidence of D.W.2 in coming to the conclusion that the defendant did not turn up to Kammavaripalem Village since 1978 till the date of filing of the suit, but in fact, she denied the said suggestion and that though the evidence of D.W.1 also shows that a suggestion was made to her that she was not in the village since 1978 till the date of filing of the suit, the same alone is not the basis for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and dismissing the suit of the appellant. In a suit for permanent injunction what the Court has to see is whether the party has proved his/her possession over the suit schedule property and prima facie right to be in possession of the same. The plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2011 has produced the pattadar pass book-Ex.A.2 and the adangals-Exs.A.6 to A.9 and established his possession over item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has also produced the water tax receipt-Ex.A.3, whereas the house tax receipts produced by the defendant under Exs.B.4 and B.5 are with regard to some other house number and they contain different assessment numbers. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence, do not give rise to any question of law, much less, substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeals are dismissed at the sage of admission. However, it is always open for the appellant to avail the remedies under law for declaration of her right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:02.09.2011 va