S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE 2nd defendant in O. S. 116 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge kothagudem is the appallant, The first respondent here in the plaitiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the dsfendanta from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule land situated at Kothagudem village. The plaintiff cold the said land to the third defendant under Ex. B-1 Dt. 11-12-1967. His case is that notwithstanding the sale in favour of the third defendant he wanted the plaintiff to continue in possession by cultivating the laad. The third defendent sold the said land to the 2nd defendant under Ex. B-4 on 18-1-1980. The 1st defedant is the father of the 2nd defendant. Alleging that defendants 1 to 3 started interfering in his possession of the land, the suit was laid for permanent injunction

( 2 ) THE 2nd defeadant filed written statement stating, inter alia, that he has been in possession of the land from the date of the agreement for sale entered into by him with the 3rd defeadant on 1-1-1979; the sale deed la her favour was executed on 30-1-1980. She denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit laad after the execution of the sale deed Ex. B 1 She statad that after the purchase of the laud from the plaintiff the third defendant was having a poultry farm in the said land and that due to the death of the 3rd defendant s son he could not manage the same and sold away the land to the 2nd defendant. She further allegad that having influenced the patwarl the plaintiff got entered his name in column 16 of the Pahani eventhough be sold the same in 1969.

( 3 ) ON these pleadings the trial court framed the following issues :1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? 3. To what relief ?

( 4 ) ON the first issue the trial court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit. On the second issue it held that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction and decreed the suit on 11-10-1985.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the trial court, defendants 2 and 3 filed A. S 25/85 bsfore the District Court khammam. The appellate court held that the 3rd defendant lost title to the suit land by not being in possession of the same for the last 13 years from 1967 to 1980 and as such the 2nd defendant could not have derived any title to the suit land under Ex. B 4. It further observed that the 2nd defendant did not file any document to prove his possession. It recorded a further finding that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the land from the date of Ex B-1 till 1980 and that in that view or me matter, confirned the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on 17-7-1986.

( 6 ) DISSATISFIED with the judgment and decree of the appellate court the 2nd defendant has filed this Second Appeal.

( 7 ) SRI Eila Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends chat in view of the pleadings of the parties the Court below erred in recording the finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the land on the date of the suit, whereas in fact, the 2nd defendant was in possession of the land. I am afraid cannot entertain the contention of the learned counsel Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit or whether defendants 1 and 2 were in possession on the relevant date, is a question of fact which cannot be agitated in the second appeal.

( 8 ) IT is next contended by Sri Ella reddy that the finding recordad by the courts below that the 3rd defendant lost title by adverse possession is unwarranted and that the possession of the plaintiff was permissive possession and therefore he cannot seek permanent injunction against the true owner. Sri Agasthya Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff, submits that the appellate court was righ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document