A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is demonstrated; furthermore, an adverse inference is drawn against a party who fails to enter the witness box to substantiate their written pleadings.

JUDGMENT:

1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 23-06-2016 in A.S.No. 10 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur (for short, 'the appellate Court'), confirming the decree and judgment dated 18-07-2012 in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellants herein are defendant Nos. 1 to 3, respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein are defendant Nos. 4 to 11 in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property and also not to alienate or execute any document in respect of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit without costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property and also directed the defendants not to alienate or execute any kind of document in respect of plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved of the same, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court dismissed the first appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos. 1 to 3-the 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 were arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 16 of 2010, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is situated in Edara Village of Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. Originally, plaint schedule property is the absolute property of grandfather of the plaintiff by name Kaluva Lathhan @ Lathha and his name was also mutated in revenue records. About 40 years back, grandfather of the plaintiff died intestate. On the death of the said Lathhan, his son Ramaiah, who is father of the plaintiff, succeeded plaint schedule property in succession as his legal-heir. Since then, the father of the plaintiff was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till his death. Subsequently, about 20 years back, the father of the plaintiff died intestate. On the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, his brother Prabhakar Rao and their mother Ademma succeeded the same in succession. Subsequently, they orally partitioned all the properties of the deceased Ramaiah and in the said oral partition, plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with absolute rights to the knowledge of one and all including the defendants. The name of the plaintiff is also entered in revenue records.

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers and defendant No. 1 is their mother and all are members of a joint family. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over plaint schedule property. Due to escalation of prices of lands, the defendants are seriously tryi