THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Second Appeal No.1468 of 2007 Date: 13-8-2009 Between 1. Kotte Srirama Murthy (Died) per LR 2. K.Ravikanth … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff and 1. Machavarapu Lal and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Second Appeal No.1468 of 2007 Oral Judgment: Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Counsel appearing for appellant No.2 and Sri G.Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-6-2007, in A.S.No.116 of 1999, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna district, wherein and whereby the (common) judgment and decree, dated 20-8-1999, in O.S.No.36 of 1996 (along with O.S.No.184 of 1996), passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, were confirmed dismissing the said suit filed by appellant No.1 since died, father of appellant No.2, seeking for the reliefs of declaration and consequential permanent injunction. 3. Appellant No.1 herein since died was the unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court; and appellant No.2, who is the son of the original plaintiff, filed this second appeal; and respondents 1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. 4. Both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court while adverting to the various contentions and facts on record, pointed out several discrepancies in the plaint itself with regard to the suit schedule property. It is the specific view of both the Courts below that the suit schedule property was not properly described and from the averments and the schedule appended to the plaint, it was very difficult for the Courts to arrive at the conclusion as to what exactly the plaint schedule property is. 5. It was pointed out by the lower appellate Court that in the plaint schedule, when the extent of the disputed site was shown as 40 square yards, the same was not stated in the schedule of the property filed by the appellants. Therefore, it was found by the lower appellate Court because of the conduct of the appellants in not able to describe the suit schedule property that the plaintiff himself was not sure about the property on which he has to raise the claim for being declared as owner. Both the Courts below apparently have gone into the questions of fact basing on the material available on record and also having considered the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, arrived at the conclusion that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. Since the questions that were discussed by both the Courts below are pure questions of fact, I do not find any substantial question in this second appeal. 7. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment under appeal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13th August, 2009. Ak