APHC010498902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 321/2025 Between: 1. G RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O PAKKERA REDDY, AGE 66 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O KALIKAVANDLA PALLI, H/O GANTHIMARRI RAMAGIRI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. G RAMANA REDDY, S/O G.LAKSHMI REDDY, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O KALIKAVANDLA PALLI, H/O GANTHIMARRI RAMAGIRI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 2. THE TAHSILDHAR, RAMAGIRI MANDAL, RAMAGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM REVENUE DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM TOWN 4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR TOWN ANANTAPUR DISTRICT NOW SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION 2. N RANGA REDDY The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Sri K. Vijay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration. 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.115 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants therein. The Plaintiff relied on Exhibits A.1 to A.4:  Ex.A.1 is the Original D-Form Patta dated 13.08.1990;  Ex.A.2 is the Title Deed under the Pattadar Pass Book Act;  Ex.A.3 is the Original D-Form Patta dated 17.05.1961 issued in favour of one G. Muthyalakka, who has no issues; and  Ex.A.4 is a Registered Will dated 10.11.1978. 3. After a elaborate trial, the Trial Court dismissed O.S.No.115 of 2013 vide Order dated 04.02.2020, by holding that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove possession over the Suit Schedule Property. He is not entitled to a Permanent Injunction. 4. The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.9 of 2020 filed by the Plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmavaram, also met the same fate vide Order dated 19.04.2024. 5. This Court has perused the Order passed by the First Appellate Court. Possession is a matter of fact that ought to be established by way of cogent evidence. The Plaintiff has failed to prove possession over the Suit Schedule Property, which led both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to disbelieve the version of the Plaintiff, thereby dismissing the Suit and the First Appeal with concurrent findings. 6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the case on hand, this Court is also of the view that the present Second Appeal is devoid of any merit. There are no substantial questions of law. 7. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 02.09.2025 DSV 257 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 321/2025 02.09.2025 DSV HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. SECOND APPEAL NO: 321/2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 06. 02.09.2025 GRKP, J Second Appeal is dismissed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV