A Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is raised. The burden remains on the plaintiff to establish title independently, rather than relying on alleged weaknesses in the defense.

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09.02.2023 in A.S.No.23 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 21.06.2017 in O.S.No.272 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.272 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.272 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, with a prayer for declaration of right and possession of plaint schedule property and to declare sale held in between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 is null and void and consequential permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 6 and 7 by restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5 from raising the constructions in the plaint schedule properties and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants 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 plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.272 of 2007, is as follows:

Originally, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and the father of the defendant No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 1944, on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsiff, Gooty, seeking partition and subsequently, a preliminary decree was passed and thereafter, final decree was also passed. The plaintiffs pleaded that in the said final decree, total 22 shares were divided among the petitioners and respondents in I.A.No.424 of 1962 in O.S.No.16 of 1944. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the father of the defendant No.5 herein was granted a relief of 1/22 share and separate possession in the suit schedule property and divisions 1 to 5 fallen to the share of the defendant No.5 herein and her late sister O.Jayamma and three others and the divisions 6 to 17 fallen to the share of O.Chakrapani and 18 to 22 divisions fallen to the share of plaintiff and defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the present suit, but the defendant No.5 and her sister late O.Jayamma and three others sold the shares of the plaintiffs to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein and executed a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1997. The plaintiffs pleaded that as there is no right and title over the same, the sale between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 herein is null and void and no better title would be conveyed to the defendant Nos.1 to 4.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that defendant Nos.1 to 4 were in possession of the suit schedule property and are trying to construct some structures though they have no right to enter into the plaint schedule property. As such, the suit for declaration of right and title and for separate possession and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5 from raising construction in the plaint schedule property is filed by the plaintiffs.

7. Th