The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.

1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2022 in A.S.No.73 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam ("First Appellate Court" for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 15.09.2017 in O.S.No.141 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam ("Trial Court" for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.141 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.141 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his kith and kin, servants, agents and henchmen from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.73 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant 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.141 of 2011, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is situated at Chennuru Village, Pedana Mandal. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property on 04.01.2008 from one Maganti Arjuna Kumari for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,59,000/- and the said Maganti Arjuna Kumari received the sale consideration before the Sub Registrar and registered the same in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession to him. Ever since, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute right, title, interest and has been cultivating the same in his exclusive possession and enjoyment to the knowledge of one and all from the date of registered sale deed. His vendor in turn bequeathed the schedule property by way of gift settlement deed executed by her mother Tadisetty Jala Sampurnamma on 24.11.2004. The defendant, who is no other than the brother of vendor of the plaintiff, trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property, but due to timely intervention of the neighbouring farmers, the plaintiff resisted him. Thereafter, on 02.02.2011, the plaintiff filed a P.L.C.No.16 of 2011 before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Machilipatnam, stating the above facts. The defendant received the notice in the said PLC and kept quite. On that the DLSA closed the said PLC directing the plaintiff to approach competent Civil Court. The defendant kept quiet for a period of one month by the attempts made by the plaintiff, but on 21.04.2011 at about 9-00 a.m., when the plaintiff was in the field, the defendant along with his person armed with deadly weapons came to the schedule property high handedly and illegally and tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the contents of plaint averments. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:
The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the plaint since there is no prima facie title, pos