HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.420 OF 2009 Dated 20th August, 2009 Between: Pyadala Yallamanda and others. …Appellants And: Smt. Purimetla Venkayamma. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.420 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellants against the Judgment passed in A.S.No.25 of 2006 on 21st July, 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. Appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.281 of 1999 before the trial Court seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule site and dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule site. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and examined Ex-Vice Sarpanch as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. But, no documents were marked on their behalf. On considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the lower appellate Court wherein the same was allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second appeal has been preferred by the appellants- defendants. When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiff. Heard and perused the Judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and material available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that against the reversing judgment of the 1st appellate Court, the Second Appeal is filed. He further submits that he is not seeking any interim relief. Coming to the substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal, they are as follows: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court below is right in relying upon a cancelled patta Ex.A.1 for proving the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court below is right in resting the burden on the appellants/defendants to prove that the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property as against the well settled principles of law that the plaintiff shall stand or fall on his own merits but not on the weakness of the defendants? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court below in reversing the judgment of the trial court is legally sustainable and is supported by any evidence on record? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court below is legally sustainable since it is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C.? (v) Whether the Courts below misread, misinterpreted and ignored the evidence available on record.? The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants while trying to substantiate the substantial questions raised in the memorandum of the grounds of appeal, has submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the plaint schedule property. In support of this contention, he relied upon para-14 of the judgment of this court in N. S. SRINIVAS Vs. MADDURI MALLAREDDY ([1]), which reads thus: “It is also the well settled proposition of law that in a suit for injunction, the question of title has to be and can be gone into. What is the effect of consideration and decision regarding the finding relating to title in a suit for injunction is a different subject. But, the law established and remained unsettled is that the question of title can be gone into in a suit for injunction.” He further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has suppressed the material facts of cancellation of her patta and hence, the appeal has to be allowed on this ground. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision reported in D. SUGUNA Vs. SRI BALAJI VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, ALWAL, R.R.DIST. ([2]) wherein it was held at paragraph 14 as follows: “At any rate, the appellant has not approached the Trial Court with correct facts and clean hands. She has suppressed the material fact of her filing the suit, appeal and second appeal on earlier occasion in respect of the same property and the result thereof. The relief for perpetual or temporary injunctions being discretionary cannot not be extended to the parties, who do not represent the correct facts before the Courts.” He also relied decisions reported in MIDAKANTI NAGABHUSHANA REDDY Vs. MIDAKANTI YELLAIAH AND OTHERS ([3]) and also in VIYYAPU DANAYYA Vs. PEETHALA APPA RAO AND OTHERS ([4]) and KARAMALAKUNTA KADIRAMMA Vs.KARAMALAKUNTA DASAPPA AND ANOTHER ([5]). Admittedly, Ex.A1 patta granted in favour of the respondent- plaintiff probablises her possession over the suit schedule property and the appellants could not disprove the said fact by leading appropriate evidence. That apart, Ex.A2, certificate issued by the Panchayat supported by the evidence of Vice Sarpanch also probablises the possession of the respondent-plaintiff. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, justified in allowing the appeal and granting permanent injunction. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court erred in considering the aspect of possession of the suit schedule property and swayed away by the fact of cancellation of patta of the respondent-plaintiff, as rightly observed by the lower appellate Court in the Judgment impugned in this appeal. That apart, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment impugned in this appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for decision in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 20th August, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.420 OF 2009 Dated 20th August, 2009 [1] 2005-ALT-1-169, 2005-ALD-1-268, 2005 (TLS) 421483 [2] 2004-ALT-4-407, 2004-ALD-3-802, 2004 (TLS) 410553 [3] 1999 (1) ALT 821 [4] 1997 (3) ALT 266 [5] 1999 (2) ALT 256