MANIKANTI MOHAN Vs. MANIKANTI SUBBA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit O. S. No. 211 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalli for declaration of his right and title to the plaint schedule property, for delivery of possession and mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to remove the unauthorised seal and illegal construction in the plaint schedule property, damages, mesne profits and for costs, on the basis of Ex. A-1, partition deed dated 7-7-1971. The title of the plaintiff was disputed by the respondent. It is his case that he perfected his title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession.

(2.) The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues and additional issues for trial:

(3.) The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Courts below are not justified in the dismissing the suit as well as the appeal on the basis of certain discrepancies in Ex. A-1. The trial Court for the reasons stated by it in paragraphs 9 to 15 while dealing with Issue Nos. 1 to 5 recorded its finding on issue No. 3 that the plaintiff failed to establish his title to the suit schedule property, i.e., the house property bearing No. 1/223. This finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or based on 'no evidence'. Similarly the finding recorded by the learned appellate Judge too cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. The learned Appellate Judge apart from referring to the documentary evidence led by the parties, particularly referred to the evidence of D. W. 2, who is no other than the brother of the plaintiff and the defendant, that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of Ex. A-1. The learned appellate Judge also referred to the evidence of D. W. 3, who is an independent witness and a mason who constructed the suit house at the cost of the defendant. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on pure questions of fact on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. This Second Appeal does not involve any question of law, let alone substantial question of law, which requires to be decided by this Court under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.