The court reaffirmed that a second appeal can only be entertained when a substantial question of law arises, not mere factual disputes or allegations lacking proof.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015 in A.S.No.147 of 2012 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011 in O.S.No.645 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.645 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.645 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents etc. from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner till completion of 99 years lease period from 12th March, 1967 and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

-

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.645 of 2004, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is a vacant site. The father of the plaintiff Pepakayala Lovaraju obtained lease deed for a period of 99 years on 12.03.1967 from the father of the defendants Kompella Veerraju. The father of the plaintiff took possession of the property and raised a thatched hut therein. As per the lease agreement, the father of the plaintiff or his legal heirs are entitled to keep the schedule property in their peaceful possession and enjoyment by cultivating the same at their own will and wish for a period of 99 years. The lease consideration of Rs.1,500/- was paid by the plaintiffs father to Kompeiia Veerraju. The defendants 1 to 7 are the children of Kompella Veerraju. The plaintiffs father died at about 5 years back. After the death of his father, the plaintiff alone is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption. The plaintiff was given sugar card in the same door number and Panchayat Secretary also issued possession certificate to the plaintiff. The plaintiff perfected his rights over the plaint schedule property even as per the lease agreement. The defendants bore grudge against the plaintiff and without considering the lease deed, they are prociaiming in the village that they can trespass into the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.

7. The defendants filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:

The alleged lease deed dated 12.03.1967 is a rank forged one and it is not true, valid and binding on the defendants. The defendants 1 to 5, late Kompella Nageswara Rao and Kompella Somaraju are the sons of late Lovaraju and these defendants are not aware who is 6th defendant Kompella Satyanarayana and to their knowledge, the