B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of both the trial Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court in respect of the suit properties bearing S. Nos. 182/1 and 182/2 admeasuring Ac. 6. 14 Guntas situated at gudimalkapur of Hyderabad District. We refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit ( 2 ) ONE Md. Shafiuddin, was the owner of the suit land. Mr. Brahmachari Maharaja alias Ramdas Brahmachari had purchased the same from Mr. Mohd. Shafiuddin and firstly, an agreement of sale was entered into. After receipt of the consideration amount and before execution of sale deed, shafiuddin died. Thereafter, his heirs had received additional consideration amount and executed Ex. A-1-sale deed. The plaintiff got the suit lands as a legatee under the Will-deed dated 20-2-1959 executed by late Brahmachari Maharaj, who died on 27-2-68 and became the owner of the suit land. As the defendant was trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands and as cloud was cast on the title of the plaintiff, the latter had instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential injunction and the said suit was decreed after appreciating both, oral and documentary evidence adduced by either party. On appeal to this Court, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to record the evidence and then to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. The suit was again decreed which resulted in filing of the appeal and the Appeal having been dismissed, this LPA has been preferred. ( 3 ) MR. M. R. K. Choudhary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the orders of both the trial court and the learned Single Judge are not based upon proper appreciation of both, oral and documentary evidence and that the suit ought to be dismissed. Countering the said arguments, Mr. Vilas Afzal Purkar, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that both the trial Court and the learned Single Judge have scrutinized the evidence in proper perspective and that absolutely no grounds are made out for interference in this Appeal. ( 4 ) WE have perused the pleadings, oral evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 6 and D. W. I to d. W. 4 and the documentary evidence in exs. A-1 to A-68, Exs. ( 4 ) WE have perused the pleadings, oral evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 6 and D. W. I to d. W. 4 and the documentary evidence in exs. A-1 to A-68, Exs. B-1 to B-18 and exs. X-1 to X-4. The matter lies in a narrow compass as essentially, it is only a boundary dispute. Neither party claims ownership in supersession of another. Neither party claims ownership relating to the same land and it is so evident from Exs. A-1 and B-1. While plaintiff claims right in Ex. A-1, defendants claim right in Ex. B-1. In between the lands claimed by the plaintiff and the Defendants in Exs. A-1 and B-L, musi River flows and Ex. A-1 land s southern boundary is Musi, while for ex. B-1-land, Musi is a northern boundary. This clinches the issue and is not a case where there is confusion with regard to the boundaries. The lands separated by Musi river cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be doubted. That apart, preponderance of documentary evidence in Exs. A-4 to A-11 which are the revenue records, Ex. A-12-the order of the Tahsildar, Exs. A-13 to A-28, the land revenue receipts, Ex. A-29-the demand notice under the Non-Agricultural assessment Tax Act, Exs. A-30 and A-31 which are the receipts evidencing the payment of the said NALA Tax and ex. A-51 which is the certified copy of the plan of suit land, prove beyond doubt that ex. A-1-land belonged to Mohd. Shafiuddin and then passed on to Brahmachari Ramdas upon whose death, the same devolved upon the plaintiff under the Will Deed, Ex. A-3. In view of this, we do not find any merits in this Letters Patent Appeal and the L. P. A. is dismissed. No costs.