APHC010163972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SS0 0^ TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.251 & 357 of 2024 SECOND APPEAL No.251 of 2024 Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Kurnool in A S.No.49 of 2018 dated 29-2-2024 and confirming the Decree and Judgment of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O.S.No.560 of 2010 dated 4-6-2018. Between: Plot owners in Survey No.686/1 of Kallur Village, Represented by 1. Yeddula Busi Reddy, S/o.Yella Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 50 years. Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. (Died, by legal representatives - Appellants 38 to 41) 2. Pinjari Moulali, S/o.Dasthagiri, Aged about 70 years, Muslim Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Shaik Abdul Bari, S/o.Shaik Abdul Jabbar, Aged 70 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, Door No.4/15, Kammapeta, Nannur Village Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, 4. Chintha Sukanya, W/o.Chintha Lakshminarayana, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.87/281, Madhavi Nagar, Kurnool City. 5. Muthyala Srinivasulu, S/o.Lakshmi Narasimhulu, Aged about 55 years, years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Laddagiri Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. Achugatia Mohammed Haneef, S/o.Madar Sahib, aged about 40 years, , Muslim, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. Teharunnisa Bee, W/o.Ahammed Basha, Aged about 40 years, Muslim, Household, H.No. 16/133, Khadakpura Street, Kurnool City. 8. Sripathi Narasimhulu, S/o.Ramaiah, Hindu, Aged about 60 years. Agriculturist, Rudravaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 9. Katike Hussain Saheb, S/o.Feroji, Aged about 45 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 10. Munipati Arogyamma, W/o.M.Ranganna, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Household, Kondapeta Veedhi, Banaganapalli Village, Kurnool District. 11. Katike Ramachandra Rao, S/o.K.Nanne Rao, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Orvakal Village and Manual, Kurnool District. 12. Boya Giddaiah, S/o.Boya Naga Linganna, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.13/126, Panyam Village Kurnool District. and Mandal, 13. Narla Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Narla Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Nayakal Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 14. Maddikunta Venkata Ranga Reddy, S/o.Bali Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 15. K Swamy Reddy, S/o.Kasireddi Vengal Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 16. Golla Jala Narasimhulu, S/o.Golla Pullaiah, Aged about 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Dudyala Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. 17. Bommana Savithramma, 55 years. Hindu, Agriculturist Kurnool District. 18. Shaik Abdul Azeem, Muslim, Agriculturist, H.No. Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. W/o.B.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Aged . Uyyalawada Village, Orvakal Mandal, about S/o.Shaik Shall Miah Aged about 60 years, Nandikotkur 19/60A, Sangaiahpeta Street 19. Pinjari Fathima Bee, W/o.Murthuja ’ Teacher, Nandikotkur Village and Mandal 20. Plipati Narayanamma Vali, Aged about 39 -I. Kurnool District, aged about 60 years, Hindu Agncultunst, Nandikotkur Village and Mandal, Kurnool Distriot. years, Muslim 21. Yerasu Seethamma W/o.Ramachandra, Agriculturist, Polur Village, Nandyal Mandal, about 60 years, Hindu, Kurnool District. Paria Chand ra Babu, S/o.Laxmi Narayanappa Samudram Village, Guntakal Mandal, 23. Vunnam Rama Subba Reddy, S/o.Seshi Reddy, Aged about 50 Hindu, Agriculturist Kurnool District. 24. Mangali Chinna Maduleti aged 32 years, Naga Anantapur District. years, Cheruvulakothur Village, Veldurthi Mandal, L,. ^ S/o.M.Lakshmanna, Aged about 55 years in u, Agriculturist, Cement Nagar, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District. ’ 25. Mangali Janakiram, S/o.M.Vasanna Agriculturist, H.No. aged about 60 years, Hindu, and Mandal, Kurnool 15/93-43, Kallur Village District. 26. Kuruva Gayathri, Daughter Hindu, Staff Nurse, H.No.78/8 District. 27. Kanakala Achanna of K.Naganna, Aged about 34 >A3, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool City years, and S/o.K.Giddaiah, Hindu aged about 40 Agriculturist, Basthipadu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. years. 28. Kanakala Sreedharudu, S/o.K.Giddaiah, aged about 40 years, Hindu Agriculturist, Basthipadu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 29. R.Venkata Narasamma, W/o.R.Venkata Sastry, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Retired Teacher, Plot N0.IO/BI, Sai Nagar, Kurnool. 30. Shaik Basheer Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Khasim Miah, Aged about 60 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, Loddipalle Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 31. Thota Lakshmikantha Reddy, S/o.T.Chinna Swamy Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 32. K.V.Lakshmidevi, W/o.K.P. Veeranna, Hindu, Aged about 45 years. Agriculturist, H.No.50/14,B/B2, B Camp, Kurnool City and District. 33. C.Anasuya, W/o.Chennuru Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 33 years Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.9/308, Gowripeta, Betamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 34. G.Maheswarmma, W/o.Gowri Sreenivasa Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.9/105, Gowripeta, Betamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 35. Dr.N.Chenna Krishna Reddy, S/o.N.Venkata Reddy, aged 61 years Hindu, Retired Doctor, H.No.43/58-A, Narasingaraopeta, Kurnool City. 36. Lingam Chandra Mohan, S/o.Lingam Krishnamurthy, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.52/118-A, Ameer Buildings, Chidambararao Street, Kurnool City and District. 37. Shaik Mumtaz Begum, W/o.Nabi Saheb, Aged about 60 years, Muslim, Household, Banaganapalle Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 38. Yeddula Yellamma, aged 70 years, W/o.Yella Reddy, Hindu, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 39. Yeddula Jayamma, W/o.Late Yeddula Busi Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 40. Yeddula Pavan Kumar Reddy, aged 25 years, S/o. Yeddula Busi Reddy, Hindu, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 41. Yeddula Yasoda, aged 22 years. Daughter of Yeddula Busi Reddy, Hindu, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 42. M.Venkata Lakshmamma, W/o.M.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged 66 years, Hindu, living by property, R/o.H.No.6-53, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 43. M.Sivakiran Reddy, S/o.M.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged 29 years Hindu, living by property, R/o.H.No.6-53, Orvakal Village and Mandal Kurnool District. 44. M.Chanikya Reddy, S/o.M.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged 27 years, Hindu, living by property, R/o.H.No.6-53, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. (Appellants 42 to 44 were added as per Orders in Interlocutory Application No.236 of 2021, dated 31.03.2021) ...Appellants/Piaintiffs AND 1. R Immanuel, S/o.Sreenivasa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 37 years. Business, D.No.49/50-A-442, Sreeram Nagar, Kurnool City and District. 2. S Ramesh, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged about 33 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/902, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal and District. 3. S Sailaja, W/o.S.Ramesh, Aged about 26 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.3/324, Uppalapadu Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. C Venkatamma, W/o.C.Naganna, Aged about 49 Household, H.No.3/324, Uppalapadu Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. years, Hindu, 5. C Nagaraju, S/o.Naganna, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.3/324, Uppalapadu Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. Naginela Maddamma, W/o.Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. S Rajesh, S/o.Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 27 Agriculturist, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool District. years, Hindu Kallur Mandal 8. S Srinivasulu, S/o.Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 27 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/702,Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal. Kurnool District. 9. S Sridevi, D/o.Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 23 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 10. Naginela Chinna Thirupathaiah, S/o.Nalwad Venkataiah, Aged about 49 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/645-E, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 11.S Chandrasekhar, S/o.Naginela Chinna Thirupathaiah, Aged about 20 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/702B, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 12. A Nagamma, W/o.Narasaiah, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Household, D.No.64/99, S.Nagappa Street, Kurnool City and District. 13. A Siva, S/o.A.Narasaiah, Aged about 20 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, D.No.64/99, S.Nagappa Street, Kurnool City and District. 14. A Jayamma, W/o.Rajesh, Aged about 23 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 15. G Mangamma, W/o.Late Jesudas, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, H.N0.69/657-C, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 16. G Deva Balakrishna, S/o.Late Jesudas, Hindu, Aged about 25 years Agriculturist, H.No.69/657-C, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal Kurnool District. 17. G Soumya, D/o.Late Jesudas, Hindu, Aged about 20 years, Household H.N0.69/657-C, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Budige Rangaswamy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai SECOND APPEAL No.357 of 2024 Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Kurnool in A.S.No.50 of 2018 dated 29-2-2024 and confirming the Decree and Judgment of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O.S.No.552 of 2011 dated 4-6-2018. Between: Plot owners in Survey No.686/1 of Kallur Village, Represented by 1. Y.Sakunthalamma, W/o.Y.Nagi Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. K.Venkatadasu, S/o.K.Ramadasu, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, Hindu Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. T.Debora Rani, W/o.V.Nirmal Kumar, aged 47 years, Christian, Teacher, Door No.43/253-9, Narasingaraopeta, Kurnool District. 4. G.Rathnamma, W/o.Late G.Devadanam, Christian, Aged about 60 years, Household, H.No.3-8-54, Sriramalayam, Allagadda Village and Mandal, Kurnool City. 5. K.Mallikarjuna, S/o.K.Ponnappa, Aged about 46 years, Hindu, Tailor, Bandimetta Street, Kurnool City and District. 6. A.Varalakshmamma, W/o.A.Hari Ramudu, Hindu, Aged about 57 years. Household, Alaganur Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. K.Ramanaiah Setty, S/o.K.Yellaiah Setty, Hindu, Business, Aged about 60 years, Kethavaram Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 8. A.Ramaiah, S/o.A.Rangaiah, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Alaganur Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 9. G.Venkata Subbaiah S/o. G.Venkataiah, Hindu, Agriculturist Poodicherla Village, Oi'vakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 10. G.Rama Mohan Reddy, S/o.G.Lakshmi Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Pydala Village, Rajupallem Mandal, Kadapa District. 11. K.Subramanyam Setty, S/o.K.Ayyappa Setty, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Business, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. S/o.G.Venkataiah Hindu, Kurnool 12. N.Raghunatha Reddy, S/o.N.Rami Reddy, Aged about 34 years. Agriculturist, Hindu, Reddipalle Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District. 13. G.Pushpa, W/o.G.Uma Maheswara Reddy, Aged about 40 years Hindu, Household, Door No. 10-4- 35/9/11C, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 14. V.Rajasekhar, S/o.Vemula Seshaiah, Hindu, Aged about 62 years. Agriculturist, Poodicherla Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. W/o.P.Papanna, Dudekula, Aged about 45 years, Veepanagandla Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool 15. P.Rameeja Bee Household District. 16. D.Venkata Subba Rao, S/o.Eswaraiah, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Mundlapadu Village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam Retired Teacher District. 17. D.Chandramouleeswaraiah, S/o.D.Mahanandaiah, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Teacher, Pedda Devalapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 18. G. Krishna Kumari, W/o.M.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Teacher, D.No.40/802, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool District. 19. S.Abdul Rasheed Miah, S/o.S.Goari Hussain Miah, Aged about 33 Muslim, Agriculturist, Nandanapalli Village, Kurnool Mandal and years. District. Aged about 40 years. 20. K.Usha Rani, W/o.R.Sankarlal, Hindu Household, Door No.LIG 102, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Kurnool City. S/o.Yerukala Yellappa, Hindu, Aged about 33 No.1-92, Seripalli Village, Alampur Mandal, 21. Yerukala Seshanna, years, Coolie, Door Mahaboob Nagar District. 22. K.Seetha Devi, W/o.K.Lakshminarayana, Hindu, aged 56 years. Household, Lakshmipuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. S/o.K.Yellaiah, Aged about 45 years. Agriculturist, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District 24. K.Lashmidevamma, W/o.K.Sivaramaiah, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Household, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. Hindu, 23. K.Sivaramaiah, 25. A.Yogeeswara Reddy, S/o.A.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Poodicherla Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 26. G.Kiranmai, D/o. G.Sankaraiah, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, Household, H.No.87/1005, Rajeswari Nagar, Kurnool City and District. 27. H.Narasappa, S/o.Late Amar Kumar, Hindu, Aged about 30 Agriculturist, living on property. Door No.3/111 Kurnool District. years, Kallur Darwaja, ...Appellants/Plaintiffs AND 1. Saluvadi Venkataiah, S/o.Pedda Thirupathana, Aged about 75 Hindu, Agriculturist, Resident of H.No.69/902, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal and District. 2. R Immanuel, S/o.Sreenivasa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 37 Business, D.No.49/50-A-442, Sreeram Nagar, Kurnool City District. years years, and 3. S Ramesh, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged about 33 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/902, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal and District. 4. S Sailaja, W/o.S.Ramesh, Aged about 26 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.3/324, Uppalapadu Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. C Venkatamma, W/o.C.Naganna, Aged about 49 Household, H.No.3/324, Uppalapadu Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. years, Hindu, 6. C Nagaraju, S/o.Naganna, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.3/324, Uppalapadu Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. Naginela Maddamma, W/o.Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. S Rajesh, S/o.Pedda Thimpathaiah, Aged about 27 years, Hindu, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, 8. Agriculturist Kurnool District. 9. S Srinivasulu, S/o.Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 27 years, Hindu, Village, Kallur Mandal, Agriculturist, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Kurnool District. 10. S Sridevi, Daughter of Pedda Thirupathaiah, Aged about 23 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. Naginela Chinna Thirupathaiah, S/o.Nalwad Venkataiah, Aged about 49 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/645-E, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. S Chandrasekhar, S/o.Naginela Chinna Thirupathaiah, Aged about 20 Hindu, Agriculturist, H.No.69/702B, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. A Nagamma, W/o.Narasaiah, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Household, D.No.64/99, S.Nagappa Street, Kurnool City and District. A Siva, S/o.A.Narasaiah, Aged about 20 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, D.No.64/99, S.Nagappa Street, Kurnool City and District. 15. A Jayamma, W/o.Rajesh, Aged about 23 years, Hindu, Household, H.No.69/702, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 11. 12. years. 13. 14. W/o.Late Jesudas, Hindu, Aged about 40 years. 16. G Mangamma H.N0.69/657-C, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 17. G Deva Balakrishna, S/o.Late Jesudas, Hindu, Aged about 25 years. Agriculturist, H.No.69/657-C, Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 18. G Soumya, Daughter of Late Jesudas, Hindu, Aged about 20 years, Household, H.No.69/657-C, Kurnool District. Joharapuram Village, Kallur Mandal ...Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Budige Rangaswamy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai The Court made the following order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.251 of 2024 & Second Appeal No.357 of ?n9d Common Judgment: The Second Appeal No.251 of 2024 is filed against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.49 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge. Kurnool (“First Appellate Court” for short). The said A.S.No.49 of 2018 is filed against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.560 of 2010 file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (“Trial Court^ , on the for short). The Second Appeal No.357 of 2024 is filed against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.50 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The said A.S.No.SO of 2018 is filed against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.552 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. On memos filed by both sides counsel before the Trial Court, the Trial Court clubbed both the suits i.e., O,S.No.560 of 2010 and O.S.No.552 of 2011 and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.560 of 2010 and common in both the suits. The learned First Appellate Judge also pronounced a common judgment in both the appeals i.e., A.S.No.49 of 2018 and A.S.No.50 of 2018. Therefore, this Court clubbed judgment was pronounced both the second together for being appeals i.e., S.A.No.251 of 2024 and S.A.No.357 of 2024 pronouncement of a common judgment. 2. In both the second appeals, the appellants are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in O.S.No.560 of 2010 and O.S.No.552 of 2011. 3. The plaintiffs in both the suits i.e., O.S.No.560 of 2010 and O.S.No.552 of 2011 initiated action before the Trial Court with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men r --' ^aents from in 2 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357 2024 ' any way entering into or interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule land by permitting the plaintiffs to sue in representative capacity representing all the plot owners in Sy No.686/1 in the plaint schedule. 4. The Trial Court vide O.S.No.560 of 2010 and O.S.No.552 of 2011 aggrieved of the said common judgment, the unsuccessful suits, filed A.S.No.251 of 2024 and A.S.No.357 a common judgment, both the suits in are dismissed with costs. Felt plaintiffs in both the of 2024 before the First a common judgment, common judgment passed by appeals are filed. Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge vide dismissed both the first appeals confirming the the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present second 5. For the sake of convenience, both referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments i O.S.No.560 of 2010 connected with A.S.No.49 of 2018 & S.A is as follows: parties in the appeal will be in .No.251 of 2024, (i) The plaint schedule property is one contiguous unit as one block. The total extent of suit survey No.686/1 is Ac.9-15 cents. Total extent purchased by one Chinna Venkataiah and Saluvadi under a registered sale deed, dated 06.02.1947. It is the property of both Chinna Venkataiah and Saluvadi Pedda Thirupathanna, each having half share in the total extent of property. They orally divided the them and each was Pedda Thirupathanna property between one got an extent of Ac.4-57 14 cents. Saluvadi Pedda Thirupathanna has a son by name Saluvadi Venkataiah. Saluvadi Venkataiah executed a registered Power of Attorney, dated 17.08.1987 in favour of A. Kesava Narayana empowering him to sell and manage the plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.3-57 14 cents in Sy.No.686/1. The power of attorney holder sold different plots in the plaint schedule land to different persons, including the plaintiffs herein under different sale deeds. So far as 3 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357_2024 15'^ plaintiff is concerned, the sale deed is in the name of his father, who died leaving behind him as the sole heir and he is in possession and enjoyment of the plot purchased under the sale deed. Likewise, sale deed is in the name of the husband of 29'^^ plaintiff, who is no more and she is enjoying the same exclusively. Ever since, the plaintiffs and other purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of the same absolutely and independently. Earlier, their vendors and predecessors-in-title were in possession and enjoyment of the same since times immemorial. The defendants have neither title nor possession over the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is the property of Saluvadi Pedda Thirupathanna and after his death, his only Saluvadi Venkataiah became the owner of the schedule property. son St (ii) The plaintiffs further pleaded that the 1 defendant took three merit. 02.03.2009, 12.06.2009 and 12.06.2009 from the defendant Nos.2 to 17, covering the total extent of plaint schedule land. In the said documents, the source of title is traced to Pedda Thirupathanna under a registered sale deed, dated 06.02.1947. The defendant Nos.2 to 17 are no other than the c? I y ? C D ower of Attornev-cum-Sale A as dated I v_/ sons, daughters and grandchildren of Saluvadi Venkataiah, executants of Power of Attorney, dated 17.08.1987. But, the said three documents are conspicuously silent about the Power of Attorney, dated 17.08.1987 or sales affected by Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiffs and others. Under the guise of three documents of Power of Attorney, dated 02.03.2009, 12.06.2009 and 12.06.2009, the 1®' defendant is threatening to enter into the plaint schedule land and occupy the same. The 1"' defendant threatened the plaintiffs that he will play the caste factor and implicate the plaintiffs under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, if they object for illegal trespass. The 1®* defendant actually made an attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule land in the first week of December, 2010 and by the timely intervention of plaintiffs, it was averted. The 1®* defendant stealthily removed the survey stones in the land to change VGKR, sa_251 and 357 2024 ■ the physical features of the land and that thereby to file the suit. the plaintiffs are constrained 7. The defendants filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments. The averments in the written statement, in brief, are as follows: (I) The suit filed by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity maintainable; rather, each plaintiff ought , IS not to have filed a separate suit by paying separate Court fee against the defendants by showing their respective properties, with specific boundaries: so, the suit filed is bad in law, which shall fail. The plaintiffs failed to adhere the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and thus, the suit cannot be tried by invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on that ground the suit shall fail. (ii) The plaintiffs shall prove that in the suit schedule land, there house plots and the are were said to have been got approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad in L.P.No.111/1987. The plaintiffs have to establish that Saluvadi Venkataiah same said to have been executed a registered General Power of Attorney, dated 17.08.1987 in favour of A. Kesava Narayana to the extent of Ac.3-57 Yz have been laid plots and sold the plaintiffs. cents, who in turn said to same to different persons including the (iii) The 1®' defendant obtained a registered General Power of Attorney- cum-Agreement of sale, dated 02.03.2009, 12.06.2009 and 12.06.2009 from the defendant Nos.2 to 17 in respect of the suit land and the transactions evidenced by the recitals of the documents. are (iv) The property of Saluvadi Venkataiah is ancestral and it is a Hindu undivided joint family property. Saluvadi Venkataiah got 1/7‘'^ share, so also, all his children are entitled to 1/7*'" share each. Saluvadi Venkataiah addicted 5 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357 2024 to bad vices, not educated person and on being demanded, as he did not opt to divide the property and allot shares to his children, they approached Lok Adalat and obtained orders that they are all legal heirs and got 6/7*^ share over the property. Subsequently, the property was orally partitioned. The heirs of Saluvadi Venkataiah and the figured defendants got their 6/7*'' share eastern side as shown in.'B’ schedule of written statement and 1/7*^ share of land fell to the share of Venkataiah, shown as ‘A’ schedule land in the written on statement. The defendants and others have got 'B' schedule land and 'A' and ‘B’ schedule lands comprised the suit schedule property. Three sons of Saluvadi Venkataiah viz., S. Ramesh defendant), Chinna Thirupathaiah (10'^ defendant) and another Pedda Thirupathaiah and three daughters of Venkataiah viz., Venkatamma (4"" defendant), Nagamma (12'^ defendant) and Mangamma (15*^ defendant) jointly leased the ‘B’ schedule land of the written statement in Sy.No.686/1 to the extent of Ac.8-9u cents situated in the limits of Joharapuram Village, Kurnool to R. Immanuel (1®‘ defendant) under a registered lease deed, dated 10.07.2006 and put the property in possession of the lessee. Since 10.07.2006, the 1 defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the ‘B’ schedule land to the knowledge of one and all. (v) The heirs of Saluvadi Venkataiah tried to alienate the property. The 1®‘ defendant filed Andhra Tenancy Case No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer, Kurnool, seeking direction that the 1®* defendant shall be given first option to purchase the suit land. Pending the same, he had also obtained ad-interim injunction against the defendants therein and there was compromise between the parties and in pursuance of the same, an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was executed and in pursuance of the same, the 1®‘ defendant sold part of the property to the referred defendants and put them in possession of the suit property and ever since, they are in title and possession of their respective sites. 6 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357_2024 ' (vi) One A. Kameswaramma Narayana have filed N. Samanthakamani and Kesava on the file of the a civil suit in O.S.No.469 of 2007 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against some of the defendants claiming owners in title and possession of the suit schedule that they are said to be the property and after due trial, the suit was dismissed holding that the are having no title and 1 defendant and his purchasers possession over the no point of time, plaintiffs in O.S.No.469 property and further observed that at of 2007 were in title and possession of the property. The unsuccessful suitinA.S.No.9of2011 on the file of plaintiffs in the suit has preferred appeal the Additional District Judge, Kurnool and the appeal was dismissed as not pressed and that the defendants urged to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues for trial; the following (1) Whether the plaintiffs the schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiffs as prayed for? are in possession and enjoyment of are entitled for permanent injunction. (3) To what relief? 9. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments i O.S.No.552 of 2011 connected with A.S.No.50 of 2018 & is as follows: in S.A.No.357 of 2024, The present plaint averments and the averments of plaint in O.S.No.560 of 2010 are almost one and the same. In the present claimed to be the plot owners in Sy.No.686/1. The 1"* defendant sold Ac.1-00 cents of land in the plaint schedule property to A. Kameswaramma Samanthakamani under a registered sale deed, dated 10.07.1984 and the purchaser§^^xecuted a Power of Attorney to A. Kesava Narayana under a case, 27 plaintiffs and N. 7 VGKR, J. sa 251 and 357 2024 registered General Power of Attorney, dated 01.12.1987 empowering him to sell and manage the plaint schedule property.The said Kesava Narayana sold it to different persons under different sale deeds by laying plots in L.P.No.1 1/1987. The 2'^'^ defendant made an attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule land in the first week of October, 2011 and by timely intervention of the plaintiffs, it was averted. The 2^^ defendant removed the survey stones in the land in order to change the physical features. It was also averred that some of the plot owners have filed a separate civil suit in Original Suit No.560 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and obtained interim injunction and that the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit. 10. The defendants filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments. The averments in the written statement, in brief, are as follows: The pleadings in the written statement of present case and the pleadings in the written statement filed by defendants in O.S.No.560 of 2010 are almost similar and one and the same. The 2"'^ defendant in the written statement pleaded as follows: The children of 1®‘ defendant Saluvadi Venkataiah have a right to share in the property and the 1®‘ defendant and his children orally partitioned their property under which 1/7*'^ share i.e., ‘A’ schedule in the written statement fell to the share of 1®‘ defendant and 6/7*^ share i.e., ‘B’ schedule fell to the share of children of Saluvadi Venkataiah. The children of Saluvadi Venkataiah let out the written statement ‘B’ schedule property to 2'"'^ defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 10.07.2006 and that the defendants urged to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. 11. On the basis of above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 8 VGKR.J. sa_251 and 357_2024 (1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 12. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-68 defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.12 marked. were marked. On behalf of the were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-27 were 13. The learned Trial Judge after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed both the suits vide a common judgment. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the suits filed the appeal suits in A.S.No.49 of 2018 and A.S.No.50 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants in both the civil suits have established the three salutary principles of law in order to seek the discretionary relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for, in respect of the plaint schedule properties in both the civil suits? ' (2) Whether the judgment of the Trial court needs any interference? 14. The learned First Appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above and dismissed both the appeals confirming the common judgment passed by the Trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the same, the present second appeals are filed by the plaintiffs in both the suits before this Court. 9 VGKR, J, sa 251 and 357 2024 15. Heard Sri Budige Rangaswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing on behalf of Sri Lakshmi Kanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 16. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Angela Laxmi\ the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 17. The plaintiffs having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for them to meet the above (2007) 8 see 1^ 10 VGKR, J. sa 251 and 357 2024 principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 18. These second appeals are filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in both the second appeals are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants have shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellants is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeals may be allowed by setting aside the common judgments passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 19. When both the second appeals are listed on 28.06.2024, the learned counsel for the appellants represented that he could not serve the papers on the learned counsel for the Caveators and he requested time to enable him to serve case papers to the learned counsel for the respondents. Later, the second appeals adjourned from time to time till 26.06.2025, at the stage of admission, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants, on 26.06.2025 arguments of both sides counsel on record heard. At the stage of reply submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, he represented that hearing of respondents is not at all required in the second appeals at the stage of admission and he placed a reliance of Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil vs. Tamilarasi (dead) by Legal Representatives^ wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “The scheme of Section 100 is that once the High Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, such question shall have to be framed under sub section(4) of Section 100. It is the framing of the question which empowers the High Court to finally decide the appeal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under subsection (5). Both the requirements prescribed in sub sections (4) and (5) are, ^ (2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 686 11 VGKR, J, sa_251 and 357 2024 therefore, mandatory and have to be followed in the manner prescribed therein. Indeed as mentioned supra, the jurisdiction to decide the second appeal finally arises only after the substantial question of law is framed under subsection (4). There may be a case and indeed there are cases where even after framing a substantial question of law, the can be answered against the appellant. It is, however, done only after hearing the respondents under subsection (5)”. same In the aforesaid case law, the Apex Court further held as follows: “If, however, the High Court is satisfied after hearing the appellant at the time of admission that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, then such appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine without any notice to the respondents after recording a finding in the dismissal order that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of subsection (4). it is needless to say that for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to assign the reasons in support of its conclusion”. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed another reliance of Nek Pal & others vs. Nagar Palika Parishad & others^. The facts in the aforesaid case laws are the High Court has not framed any substantial question of law at the stage of admission. Here, the second appeals have not yet admitted. In the instant case, the respondents filed Caveats and when the second appeals listed on 28.06.2024, the (earned counsel for the appellants represented that he could not serve the papers on the learned counsel for the Caveators and he requested time to enable him to serve case papers to the learned counsel for the respondents and later, the second appeals adjourned from time to time till 26.06.2025. 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 633 12 VGKR, sa_251 and 357_2024 20. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows (1) [Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question. IS Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.] 21. The appellants are the plaintiffs in both the suits. They filed the suits for seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the schedule property. The law is well settled that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs have to plead and prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suits. 13 VGKR, J. sa 251 and 357 2024 22. The undisputed facts of both the parties are the land in Sy.No,686/1 for an extent of Ac.9-15 cents which was purchased by Chinna Venkataiah and Saluvadi Pedda Thirupathanna under a registered sale deed, dated 06.02.1947 and both of them have half share each in the said property and subsequently, they have divided the said property orally and each of them got Ac.4-57 y2 cents. The suit property in O.S.No.560 of 2010 is shown as the land situated at Kalluru in Sy.No.686/1 for an extent of Ac.3-57 72 cents in the name of ‘Pedda Chenu’ likewise, the suit property in O.S.No.552 of 2011 is situated at the same village in the same survey number for an extent of Ac.4- 57 72 cents in the name of ‘Pedda Chenu’. Saluvadi Thirupathanna had a son by name Venkataiah and Thirupathanna died. The appellants in both the suits pleaded that the said Venkataiah executed a registered General Power of Attorney, dated 17.08.1987 in favour of A. Kesava Narayana, who sold the said property to the appellants in both the suits and others. The specific plea put forth by the defendants in the written statement is that the said Venkataiah had no exclusive right over the said property, since he has got children and all of them jointly partitioned the joint family properties and Venkataiah had got only 1/7**^ share in the said property and remaining extent of property fell to the share of children of late Venkataiah. Once it is a joint family property, the sale deeds obtained from one of the co-sharers is not binding on the other co defendant in O.S.No.560 of 2010 is son of Venkatiah, 3'"^ nd sharers. The 2 defendant is wife of 2^'^ defendant, another son Tirupataiah died, his wife is 6 defendant, his sons are defendant Nos.7 and 8 and his daughter is 9 defendant, another son of defendant is son of 10'^ defendant and th defendant; 14 defendant is the wife of 7 Venkataiah is lO^*" defendant, 11 daughters of Venkatiah are defendant Nos.4, 12, 15 and 5**^ defendant is son of 4‘^ defendant; 13*^ defendant is the son of 12'*^ defendant and defendant Nos. 16 and 17 are the children of Mangamma and her husband is no more and in O.S.No.552 of 2011 the said Venkataiah is shown as 7* defendant and 2'"'^ defendant is Power of Attorney holder obtained from children of 14 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357 2024 Venkataiah and defendant Nos.2 Venkataiah and the 2« defendant ,n O.S.No.552 of 2011 is shown as 1 defendant in O.S.No.560 of 2010. to 18 are family members and late 23. The defendants relied Attorney cancellation deed, dated 22.05.2007 case of the plaintiffs that Venkataiah on the original registered General Power of under Ex.B.1. It is the specific executed a registered General Power of Attorney under original of Ex.A.2, dated 17.08.1987. Ex.B.1 goes to show that the said Venkataiah cancelled the said registered General Power of Attorney dated 22.05.2007 by way of registered General Power of Attorney deed. cancellation 24. The learned counsel for the appellants would deeds executed by holder of General Power of Attorney, dated 17.08.1987 contend that the sale under Ex 2 in tO’vfOlir rhf thp rylQinfifrc c'-Kfooc-ii'-'v-r suDsequerui canceliatiOi I uf General Power of Attorney, dated 22.05.2007 under Ex.B.1 is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Here it is not a suit for declaration of cancellation of Registered General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by Venkataiah as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. It is a simple suit for relief of prohibitory injunction. It is well settled that where a plaintiff is in a lawful or peaceful possession of the property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person, who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But, in wrongful possession is not entitled to a suit for injunction simplicotor will a person an injunction against the rightful owner. In the case on hand, the case of the defendants is that the vendor of the plaintiffs by name Venkataiah has no exclusive right over the property and got partitioned the property and Venktaiah has got only 1/7'^ share in the plaint schedule property and children of Venkataiah are no other than the defendants in the suits. Venkataiah and children of Venkataiah 15 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357_2024 25. As seen from the material on record, except alleged sale deeds said to have been executed by power of attorney holder of Venkataiah, no other document is filed by the plaintiffs to prove their exclusive lawful possession in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.1, who is 14'^ plaintiff in O.S.No.560 of 2010. Except P.W.1. no other witnesses are examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he pleaded about the total plots laid in the entire extent of Ac.9-15 cents, even ignorance he does not know the boundaries, extent and location of all the said plots separately and he does not know whether it was agricultural land by the time of laying plots and he also does not know what extent of land was purchased by the original owner and he does not even know the boundaries of the suit schedule property. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to plead and prove that they are in actual possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. P.W.1 admits that he does not know that Kesava Narayana filed a suit for injunction against some of the defendants herein and it was dismissed and the appeal filed by Kesava Narayana was also dismissed. It is relevant to say that the said Kesava Narayana is no other than power of attorney holder of Venkataiah, who alleged to have sold the property to the plaintiffs. As stated supra, in a suit for permanent injunction, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are in actual physical possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as the date of institution of the suit, but the evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring confidence to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the plaint schedule property in respect of plots alleged to have been purchased by each of the plaintiffs as on the date of suit. on 26. The defendants relied on the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.12 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.27. Furthermore, the defendants specifically pleaded in the written statement itself that the Saluvadi Venkataiah, who is the vendor of plaintiffs, has-get^nly 1/7‘^ share in the plaint schedule property since it is an ancestral joint family property of the Venkataiah and his children i.e.. 16 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357_2024 defendant Nos.3 to 18 and they partitioned defendants relied the joint family property. The on documentary evidence to establish their defence, a genuine title dispute has been taken by the defendants statement itself, therefore, the plaintiffs have in the written to seek relief of declaration of title and the same is not done by the plaintiffs. The legal position in this regard IS no more res Integra, the same has been well settled by the Apex case of Ananthula Sudhaka Court in a r vs. P. Buchi Reddy (died by LRs.)^ In the said case, the Apex Court held that where the plaintiff is in possession but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud. or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction”. In the case on hand, the defendants raised a genuine dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiffs in the written statement itself and there serious cloud over the alleged title of the plaintiffs. It is relevant to refer the observation of the Apex Court in Jharkhand State Housing Board Singh® that “it is well settled by catena of judgments of Apex Court that each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the not necessary that in all those IS a vs. Didar in plaintiff it is cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction”. declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie 27. As stated supra, in the case on hand, in the written statement itself, the defendants specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule family property. It is also admitted fact that the schedule self-acquired property of Venkataiah. The joint owners Chinna Venkataiah and property is a joint property is not the "air 2008 sc 2033 ^ (2019) 17 see 692 17 VGKR, J. sa 251 and 357 2024 Thirupatanna have got Ac.4-57 Va cents each and one Pedda Thirupatanna has got Ac.4-57 >2 cents and Pedda Thirupathanna is having only one'son by name Venkataiah and Venkataiah has got only 1/7'*^ share in the total extent of the property in a family partition with his children. A genuine title dispute has been raised by the defendants in the written statement itself, but the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to seek the relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, the observation of the First Appellate Court that two suits filed by the plaintiffs for seeking relief of permanent injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title. As stated supra, the sole evidence of P.W.1 produced by the plaintiffs is not even sufficient to come to a conclusion that each plaintiff is having in possession and enjoyment of their respect plots. 29. As stated supra, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs have to necessarily plead and prove that they are in physical possession over the plaint schedule property. As noticed supra, the evidence of P.W.1 is not even sufficient to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The sole evidence of P.W.1 produced by the plaintiffs does not inspire confidence. In fact, P.W.1 pleaded ignorance about the extent, survey number, boundaries and location of the plots separately. Mere registration of sale deeds does not confer any right over the plaint schedule property, in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiffs have to plead and prove that they are in physical possession over the plaint schedule property. Except sale deeds, no other documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to prove that they are in physical possession over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the findings given by both the Courts below are based on evidence and there is no illegality in the said findings given by both the Courts below. 18 VGKR, J. sa_251 and 357_2024 30. The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, but does not absolute rule some of the well recognized exceptions are where: (1) The Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (2) The Courts have drawn wrong inference from proved facts by applying the law wrongly or; (3) The Courts have wrongly casts the burden of proof. But, the instance case does not come within the ambit of the aforesaid exceptions. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled the relief of perpetual injunction as sought in the plaint. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence record, the First Appellate Court also came to the same conclusion and both the Courts below given a concurrent finding that the plaintiffs in both the suits are not entitled relief of permanent injunction. The findings given by both the courts below are based on evidence. The present second appeals are not even admitted till so far, it is at the stage of admission, this Court being a second appellate Court should be satisfied that the facts involves the substantial question of law and not a mere question of law. In fact, substantial question of law raised by the appellants in the grounds of appeal are not even substantial questions of law. on 31. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suits of the plaintiffs in both the suits vide a common judgment. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither ly VGKR, J. sa 251 and 357 2024 illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset and there is no perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 32. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeals are devoid of merits and are liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. KakP In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 33. In the result, both the second appeals i.e., S.A.No.251 of 2024 and S.A.No.357 of 2024 are dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the common judgments passed by both the Courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in both the second appeals. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed. I ® AIR 2006 SC 1975 Sd/- K. TATA RAQ DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. (With Records) 2. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. One CC to Sri Budige Rangaswamy, Advocate [OPUG] 4. One CC to Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P. 6. Two CD Copies TK Cnr HIGH COURT TK DATED:08/07/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT SA Nos. 251 & 357 of 2024 ^ 18 JUL 2025 >^jTentSectigi^^ Co O DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEALS