GURRAMKONDA SREERAMULU Vs. GURRAMKONDA RAMAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs Second Appeal. The plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No. 121 of 1985 in the Court of the District Munsif, Filer, against the defendants 1 to 3 for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit after due trial. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned appellate Judge. Hence this Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C.

(2.) The learned appellate Judge on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are enjoying the suit schedule properties with specific boundaries in which the defendants are alleged to have interfered with their possession, thereby affirming the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in his judgment. The learned appellate Judge in Para 15 of the Judgment under appeal has given cogent and acceptable reasons in support of the finding recorded by him. Para (15) reads as follows:

(3.) The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and the learned appellate Judge are the findings on pure question of fact. Unless the findings on pure questions of fact are shown to be based oa no permissible legal evidence, even assuming that there is some error in appreciating the evidence, that fact itself would not amount to an error of law, lest a substantial question of law that is required to be considered and decided by this Court under Section 100 CPC. In my considered opinion, the reasons given by the learned appellate Judge in Paragraph (15) of the judgment under appeal while affirming the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. In other words, the findings recorded by the Courts below on pure questions of fact are based on acceptable substantive legal evidence. This appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, that has to be required to be decided by this Court in the Second Appeal.