JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Siddayya, plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. It was his case that he was the absolute owner in possession of the plot which had been allotted to him by the Government under Ashraya Scheme and the defendants who had no right over the same were interfering with his possession which constrained him to file a suit seeking for injunction. 2. The defendants while contesting the suit stated that originally the entire area was possessed by the family of defendants and a few years ago, the defendants had given an area of 10 x 13 feet to the plaintiff on license basis and plaintiff had occupied an additional 10 feet area adjacent to the canal. Thus, this occupation of the area was without title. 3. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he was in possession of the suit property but the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was required to file a suit for declaration and suit for a bare injunction was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. Buchi Reddy reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 . 4. The plaintiff being aggrieved, preferred an appeal. 5. In appeal, the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that in the light of the fact that the Trial Court had recorded a finding that the possession of the plaintiff was proved a decree of injunction could not have been refused. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the decision of the Apex Court in the case stated supra, was misread by the Trial Court and therefore, the decree of the Trial Court could not be sustained. The Appellate Court accordingly reversed the decree and proceeded to decree the suit and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering with his possession. It is against this concurrent finding that the plaintiff is in possession, this appeal has been preferred. 6. It cannot be in dispute that both the Courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession. It is against this concurrent finding that the plaintiff is in possession, this appeal has been preferred. 6. It cannot be in dispute that both the Courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession. In the light of recording a finding of fact by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff could not be refused. The dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by placing reliance of the decision of the Apex Court was definitely misconceived inasmuch as the Apex Court in the said case has clearly enunciated as to when a suit for declaration and possession with injunction was required to be filed and when a suit for injunction could be filed. In the instant case, the plaintiff has categorically stated that he was the absolute owner in possession of the suit plot and was therefore, seeking for a decree of injunction only because his possession was sought to be interfered with. In my view, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case stated supra, would be inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the Appellate Court. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. It is needless to state that the defendants are at liberty to file a comprehensive suit seeking for appropriate relief, if they are so adviced. 8. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, I.A.No.4/2015 does not survive for consideration.