SADASIVA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) COUNSEL representing the appellant plaintiff and Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy Counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved by the reversing Judgment made in A. S. No. 18/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge. Sompeta had preferred the present Second Appeal. The plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. No. 170/81 on the file of District Munisif. Sompeta for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into or interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property and the Court of first instance decreed the suit on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred A. S. No. 18/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge. Sompeta who had reversed the Judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. Aggrieved by the same the present Second Appeal is preferred. ( 3 ) I had given my anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court as well. The specific stands taken by the respective parties as reflected from the pleadings are as hereunder. ( 4 ) IT was pleaded in the plaint that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Pukkalla Rajayya of Gunupalli village. The said Rajayya had only son called Jogulu. Rejayya died 40 years back leaving his son Jogulu, wife Ayyamma and two daughters Ankamma and Makamma. After the death of Rajayya his only son Jogulu stepped into the shoes of his father Rajayya and succeeded to his fathers properties by survivorship. Jogulu had only one daughter Lakshmanma, the present plaintiff. While the plaintiff was a child Jogulu died about 3-4 years back leaving his mother Ayyamma who also died about 33 years back. The wife of Jogulu remarried another man. So the plaintiff because the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as the maternal unit of the plaintiff married long back and latter they also died. The property devolved on the plaintiff prior to Succession Act 1957. While so the defendants being powerful are spreading rumours that they will trespass into the suit schedule property and occupy by brutal force. Therefore in the interest of justice a permanent injunction may be granted in this regard. ( 5 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations. While so the defendants being powerful are spreading rumours that they will trespass into the suit schedule property and occupy by brutal force. Therefore in the interest of justice a permanent injunction may be granted in this regard. ( 5 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations. It was pleaded that Pukkella Rejayya married Ayyamma after the death of his first wife Danamma. Rajayya had a daughter by name Makamma through his first wife Danamma and after the death of Danamma. Rajayya married Ayyamma and he begot a son Jogulu and daughter Ankamma through her. After the death of Rajayya Jogulu was in possession and enjoyment of the said property for some time and thereafter he died. After the death of Jogulu, his wife Nanemma went away from the house of his mother-in-law Ayyamma and took her one year old daughter i. e. , the plaintiff and married again. After her daughter-in-law left her house, Jogulus widow Ayyamma brought her daughter Ankamma to her house and the properties were managed by Ayyamma and Ankamma. Subsequently, Ayyamma executed a will dated 2-6-1948 bequeathing the schedule mentioned property equally on Makamma, daughter of Rajayya through his first wife, her daughter Ankamma and her grand daughter the present plaintiff. Ayyamma died in the year 1950 and after her death the properties devolved on the plaintiff Ankamma and Makamma. As the plaintiff was with her mother Nanemma, the properties were managed by Ankamma, the daughter of Ayyamma Subsequently, Ankamma conveyed her 1/3rd share on 19-10-1951 to Makamma. Thus, Makamma acquired 2/3rd share in the schedule mentioned property and she is in possession of the entire schedule mentioned land. Therefore, the plaintiff did not have absolute right over the schedule mentioned property. The 1st defendant is the son of Makamma and he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property subsequent to the death of Makamma since 1951. The plaintiff, if at all has a right, it is limited only to 1/3rd share of the schedule mentioned property. Even this right is lost on account of adverse possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant over the statutory period. The land revenue was paid by Makamma during her life time and after her death by the 1st defendant. The suit is not maintainability and is barred by time. Even this right is lost on account of adverse possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant over the statutory period. The land revenue was paid by Makamma during her life time and after her death by the 1st defendant. The suit is not maintainability and is barred by time. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties the following Issues were settled by the Court of first instance. 1. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the alleged threat by defendants to trespass into the plaint schedule property is true? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for? 4. To what relief? ( 7 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff PW-1 to PW-3 were examined and Ex. A-1 was marked and on behalf of the defendants, DE-1 to DW-4 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-22 were marked. Elaborate submissions were made by both the Counsel and the principal contention raised by the Counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff is that even as per the stand taken by the respondents/defendants, all these are co-shares or co-owners and unless it is a clear case of ouster or perfection of title by adverse possession it cannot be said that the appellant/plaintiff had lost the rights. However, the Counsel in all fairness had submitted that the appellate Court had reversed the findings recorded by the Court of first instance only on appreciation of facts. I had also gone through the questions of law which had been raised which are just in relation to the appreciation of the report of the Commissioner on the aspect of possession and nothing more. It is needless to say that these are all only factual aspects and no substantial question of law as such is involved in the present second Appeal. The fact that at the time of visit of the Commissioner, the plaintiff had been in possession of the property also had been recorded even by the appellate Court and explanation had been given how such possession cannot be taken as possession in the eye of law for the purpose of granting the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, such findings at any rate cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence, such findings at any rate cannot be said to be erroneous. It is needless to say that in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to institute a suit claiming the relief of partition, if she is so advised. At any rate in the present suit for permanent injunction, no relief can be granted especially in the light of the clear findings recorded by the Appellate Court on facts and also in view of the fact that no substantial question of law as such had been pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff. Except making the observations referred to supra, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief. Accordingly the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.