THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.503 of 2011 Dated 28-10-2011 Between: Tankala Seetannaidu. …Appellant. And: Tankala Chinnammadu and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.503 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 15-3-2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam in A.S.No.61 of 2007 whereby and whereunder, the learned District Judge, dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment dated 20-6-2006 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta in O.S.No.76 of 2001. Appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The Plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff’s simple case is that in an oral partition, he was given half share in the suit house bearing No.1-21 in Dola Colony, Polaki Mandal and that the plaintiff and the defendants have constructed a middle wall and the plaintiff and his family are residing therein. Alleging that the defendants are proclaiming that they would forcibly evict the plaintiff from the schedule house, he filed the suit in question for permanent injunction against the defendants and their men restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant filed a written statement contending inter-alia that she has constructed the suit house and that she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the plaintiff is not residing in the suit schedule house and that he has been residing in Visakhapatnam and that he has no right in the suit schedule property. It is further contended that since the plaintiff refused to maintain her, she filed maintenance case in M.C.No.10 of 2001 against him on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta and that the plaintiff, as a counter blast, filed the suit in question. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 2. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the defendants, 1st defendant got herself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidenced came to a conclusion that Exs.A.1 to A.3 do not confer any right or title to the plaintiff in the plaint schedule house and that the plaintiff is not residing in the suit schedule house and that since the 1st defendant filed a maintenance case, the present suit is filed as counter blast to the same and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal referred to above before the 1st appellate Court and the 1st appellate Court, on reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been carried to this Court by the plaintiff. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.2,3 and Exs.A.1 to A.3. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/plaintiff, P.W.2 is the Assistant Secretary of the village, and P.W.3 is a former karanam of the village who have stated that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the suit schedule house and that Ex.A.1 to A.3 are the voters list, the photo identity card in the name of the plaintiff and the photos along with negatives, respectively and that these documents would show that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that Court below failed to consider the material evidence on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Court below failed to consider the material evidence on record? I have gone through the entire record and Judgments impugned in particular. There is nothing on record to show that the Courts below have not taken into consideration of any material evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there is misreading of evidence. From the evidence it is clear that ‘D’ form patta Ex.B.1 has been given to the first defendant. P.W.2 himself admitted that first defendant constructed the house. Merely because, voters’ list show the name of the plaintiff cannot be said that he is in exclusive possession. Both the courts below have well appreciated the evidence on sound principles and their findings are based on evidence. It is a well settled law that unless and until the findings of the Courts below are perverse and not based on evidence, no interference is required by this Court. Apart from, that when there is concurrent finding, the same cannot be interfered with. Therefore, I do not see any substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28-10-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.503 of 2011 Dated 28-10-2011