JUDGMENT : 1. S.A.No.1235 of 2017 under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is filed by defendant No.1 in the suit. 2. S.A.No.1193 of 2017 under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is filed by defendant No.2 in the suit. 3. In both the Courts below, they suffered decree of permanent injunction which was granted in favour of plaintiff. Respondent No.1 in both the S.A.No.1193 of 2017 and S.A.No.1235 of 2017 is the plaintiff in the suit. Both the appeals arose out of the same suit and are heard together and therefore they are disposed of together by this common judgment. 4. O.S.No.82 of 2014 was a suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff as against Defendant Nos.1 and 2. After due trial learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati by the judgment dated 13.10.2016 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and thereby granted permanent injunction against both the defendants. 5. Aggrieved by that each of the defendants filed separate appeals. First defendant filed A.S.No.152 of 2016. Second defendant filed A.S.No.153 of 2016. Both the appeals were considered by learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati and by a common judgment dated 06.06.2017, he dismissed both the appeals and thereby confirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. It is as against that, the first defendant filed S.A.No.1235 of 2017 challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.152 of 2016. The second defendant filed S.A.No.1193 of 2017 challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.153 of 2016. 7. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments before admission of these two second appeals. 8. It is for the appellants to show to the Court the substantial questions of law on which the second appeals merit admission. To appreciate the submissions of learned counsel on both sides the legal proceedings that unfurled before the Courts below are required to be noticed. 9. Property in dispute is Ac.0.16.4 cents of land in S.No.375/2 situated in Avilala Revenue village, Tirupati Sub Division, Balaji Registration District, Chittoor District. Definite boundaries on all the four sides are given for this property in the schedule that is appended to the plaint. 9. Property in dispute is Ac.0.16.4 cents of land in S.No.375/2 situated in Avilala Revenue village, Tirupati Sub Division, Balaji Registration District, Chittoor District. Definite boundaries on all the four sides are given for this property in the schedule that is appended to the plaint. Plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and both the defendants with a view to create unnecessary litigation and with a view to encroach upon this property were making attempts to dis-possess him and demanding to sell the property but it was refused by the plaintiff. It is also alleged that he came to own and possess the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.02.2006. According to him, having purchased this property he constructed a compound wall by spending amount. It is averred that entries in the revenue records were mutated in his favour. To protect his possession from the defendants he laid the suit for permanent injunction. 10. Each of the defendants filed their separate written statements before the trial court. In the written statement of Defendant No.1 a separate schedule of the property was furnished stating that he purchased the property under registered sale deeds dated 07.05.2003 and the property he purchased is Plot Nos.96 and 97. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of it. He raised compound wall around this property. Plaintiff has nothing to do with this property and he has come to the Court with fabricated and created documents and he sought for dismissal of the suit. 11. Second defendant in her written statement stated that she purchased Plot No.98 under registered sale deed dated 21.07.2003 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of it and the plaintiff came to the Court with fraudulent documents and plaintiff has no right, title, possession and enjoyment over her property and plaintiff got created all the revenue records which do not bind this defendant. Plaintiff had come to the Court with unclean hands. For those reasons she sought dismissal of the suit. 12. On these rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit? 2. Whether the defendants have made any attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property? 3. 12. On these rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit? 2. Whether the defendants have made any attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for granting permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property? 4. To what relief? 13. When both parties were invited to adduce evidence, plaintiff testified as Pw.1 and got examined Pws.2 and 3 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A10. As against that, Defendant No.1 gave evidence as Dw.1 and Defendant No.2 gave evidence as Dw.5 and also got examined Dw.2, Dw.3, Dw.4 and Dw.6. They got exhibited Exs.B1 to B24. 14. The detailed pleadings on both sides and the evidence in the form of documents filed on both sides sought to trace the titles of the parties. They were elaborately discussed by the trial Court. Learned trial Court was very much conscious of the fact that it was dealing with a case of permanent injunction and not a case of declaration of title and recorded an observation that in a suit for permanent injunction it is the aspect of possession that is relevant for consideration and while considering the aspect of possession an incidental investigation into title was permissible. Having said so, at Para No.32 as well as at other places the learned trial Judge recorded its findings that on evidence it found truth in the case of the plaintiff and observed that plaintiff established his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and his possession was recorded was lawful possession and the evidence established unreasonable interference from the defendants and therefore it answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and injuncted the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. 15. When the matters came up for consideration in first appeal, the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati on considered the appeals very lucidly. Since there were large number of earlier transactions leading to assertion of possession and title by both sides, the learned first appellate Court, to bring clarity to the matter, gave pictorial presentation of the sources of title as available from the pleadings of both sides. Since there were large number of earlier transactions leading to assertion of possession and title by both sides, the learned first appellate Court, to bring clarity to the matter, gave pictorial presentation of the sources of title as available from the pleadings of both sides. It considered the submissions of both sides and considered the findings of the trial Court and considered the rival contentions placed before him and finally agreed with the findings of the trial Court. One prime focus before the first appellate Court was the challenge of the defendants against the documents furnished by the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was an officer in the Revenue Department and he fraudulently obtained such fabricated documents and thus played fraud and therefore documents of the plaintiff should not be considered and they should be discarded. On the question of fraud precedent was cited before him by the appellants therein and the first appellate Court meticulously considered those aspects and stated that there was neither enough pleadings nor enough evidence brought by the appellants to establish the fraud and fabrication alleged by them. It stated that one who alleged fraud had to take appropriate pleadings and sustain the pleadings by appropriate evidence and that was completely absent. Another aspect of the matter that was argued before the learned first appellate Court was that there was an Advocate Commissioner’s report and the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Court. Adverting to that, at Para 46 of its Judgment, the learned first appellate Court stated that there was only a preliminary report filed by the Advocate Commissioner and no final report was filed and even on that preliminary report the appellants before him who are the defendants in the trial Court did not raise any objection and further stated that the Advocate Commissioner’s preliminary report was only about physical features of property and by itself would not have enabled the trial Court to take a decision on the disputed issues and failure to consider such Advocate Commissioner’s report did not in any way diminish the virtue in the trial Court judgment and thereby rejected the contention of the appellants therein. It finally observed that based on Ex.A1 and Ex.A10 and the evidence of Pw.1 and other witnesses the possession that was recorded by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff was found to be correct and it upheld the trial Court judgment and dismissed the appeals. 16. Arguing that both the Courts below committed errors, the learned counsel for the appellants invite the attention of this Court submitting that from the record the following substantial questions of law do arise: (a) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is vitiated by its failure to take into consideration the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant herein in respect of Exs.A4 to A9 and also about the conversion of the land into house sites while decreeing the suit by placing reliance on them? (b) Whether the lower appellate court is right in ignoring the admissions made by Pw.2 with regard to the possession of the appellant herein over the suit schedule property and the conversion of the land into house plots M/s.Jana Chaitanya Housing Pvt.Ltd. while decreeing the suit by placing on reliance of Exs.A4 to A9? (c) Whether the lower appellate court is right in granting injunction decree basing on the discrepancies in the evidence of appellant herein ignoring the fact that the plaintiff must establish his possession over the suit schedule property? (d) Whether the lower appellate court was right in ignoring the commissioner’s report while decreeing the suit in favour of the 1st respondent? 17. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the vendor of the plaintiff had claimed title under Ex.A2. But even prior to it on 17-04-1985 and 04-08-1988 the vendor and his family were divested of the title as they had already sold the property to Sri K.Muni Reddy. The evidence of Pw.2 admitted the case of the defendants. Exs.A4 to A9 are revenue records and they were manipulated and the discrepancies among Exs.A4 to A6 are not explained. Sub division was affected on 08-07-2013, but Ex.A5 proceedings happened to be issued much prior to that on 17-06-2013. Similarly there was stated to be a Revenue Divisional Office Surveyor giving a report dated 08-08-2013 and based on that Ex.A7 proceedings were stated to have been issued on an earlier date which is 08-07-2013 itself. Sub division was affected on 08-07-2013, but Ex.A5 proceedings happened to be issued much prior to that on 17-06-2013. Similarly there was stated to be a Revenue Divisional Office Surveyor giving a report dated 08-08-2013 and based on that Ex.A7 proceedings were stated to have been issued on an earlier date which is 08-07-2013 itself. First respondent/plaintiff was RDO and Estate Officer of T.T.D. at the relevant period and utilizing his influence he obtained Exs.A4 to A9 by fabricating the records. Report of the Advocates Commissioner established the possession of the appellants that M/s.Jana Chaitanya Housing Private Limited converted the lands into plots and therefore the possession claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff is false. Finally the submissions of the learned counsel is that perverse reading of the evidence raised the substantial questions of law and therefore this appeal has to be admitted. 18. As against this, the learned counsel for first respondent/plaintiff submit that that the proposed substantial questions of law do not arise and they do not merit for consideration for admitting the second appeals. They stand only as criticism against certain observations of the Courts below. That the Courts have concurrently recorded finding on facts in favour of the plaintiff and sitting in the second appeal this Court should not indulge in re-appreciation of the entire evidence and the various grounds urged in this appeal were urged before the Courts below and were properly answered leading to proper findings of both the Courts below and therefore this appeal deserves no admission. 19. This Court has considered the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and considered the judgments of the both Courts below. The relief claimed before the trial Court is one for permanent injunction for protection of possession. Such a suit is governed by the principles provided in The Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 36 of the Act 1963 states that granting such a preventive relief is at the discretion of the Court. Section 37(2) of the Act, 1963 states that a perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit and the defendant in the suit could be perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. Section 38(3) of the Act, 1963 states that when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction. Section 41 of the Act, 1963 provides for situations where injunction shall not be granted. It is in the context of these broad principles, about which no debate is raised before me, the controversy has to be decided. 20. The record made available at once makes it clear that the land in dispute is claimed to be agricultural land by the plaintiff and he brought into evidence the entries in the revenue records such as Ex.A4 mutation proceedings. Ex.A5 certified copy of 1-B register. Ex.A6 copy of adangal. Ex.A7 proceedings of Tashildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal showing by sub-division in S.No.375. Ex.A8 is copy of FMB (Field Measurement Book) which incorporated the sub division of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A9 was issued by VRO, Avilava Village, where the disputed property situate, recording the possession of the plaintiff. On considering these documents and on considering the oral evidence led by plaintiff, the learned trial Court, in summation at Para 32 of the judgment recorded that it is an agricultural land and it is in possession of the plaintiff and the evidence led by opposite side did not convince him that it is not an agricultural land. It found that plaintiff is in possession of the property. These findings were upheld by the first appellate Court. 21. According to the present appellants who were defendants in the suit the property in dispute was no more agricultural land and it was converted into residential area and it was accordingly plotted and a lay out was approved, at the behest of Jana Chaitanya Housing Private Limited. That these appellants purchased Plot Nos.96, 97 and 98 and therefore they have been in possession and not the plaintiff. With reference to this, the learned trial Court elaborately considered the evidence given at trial at Para No.15 and at other places. On the evidence of Dw.1 the learned trial Court stated that the alleged approval obtained from TUDA (Tiruti Urban Development Authority) was with reference to S.No.355-P, 358-P, and 359-P. It said that the suit schedule property is in S.No.375. Thus both these properties are different and hence the claim of defendants which is based on such TUDA approval do not stand for consideration. Thus both these properties are different and hence the claim of defendants which is based on such TUDA approval do not stand for consideration. At Para No.19 of its judgment of the learned trial Court refer to the evidence of Dw.6. This witness admitted that the plaint schedule property was mentioned in the revenue records as agricultural lands. Para 24 of the judgment, the learned trial Court referred to the evidence of Dw.1 and mentioned that the property mentioned in the plaint schedule is not his property. It went on to say that the evidence led by defendants do not match with the pleadings and finally disbelieved the defence set up by defendants. Learned first appellate Court at Para 42 of its judgment stated that Ex.B6 is only a General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement of sale dated 04-02-2008 and that there is no sale deed in favour of this Defendant No.1. The claim over property was based on TUDA approval indicates other survey numbers but not the survey number mentioned in the plaint schedule. It also observed that despite challenging the revenue records filed by plaintiffs they neither took proceedings against such documents nor they were able to prove any fabrication concerning those documents. With these findings both the Courts below negatived the defence set up by these appellants. 22. It is in the light of such findings when this Court has viewed the contentions raised in this appeal. The arguments turned on the appreciation of evidence. I find that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and they did not rely upon any material that was not part of the evidence and they did not omit to consider any relevant evidence that was available on record. Both the Courts considered the evidence in chief and facts elicited during the cross examination of witnesses and considered the allegation of fraud raised, and keeping in mind all the principles concerning them, there was appreciation of evidence. The discrepancies in Exs.A4 to A9 raised in this appeal were effectively dealt with by the first appellate Court at great length and it held that the arguments without any evidence could not ensure to the benefit of defendants/ appellants herein. What is there in Advocate Commissioners report is not placed before the court by the appellants herein except saying that it was ignored by the Courts below. What is there in Advocate Commissioners report is not placed before the court by the appellants herein except saying that it was ignored by the Courts below. Be it noted, the evidence by itself has not mentioned about Advocate Commissioners report. Both the Courts below during discussion of material on record, adverted to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. First appellate Court recorded an observation that report by itself could not help a Court to reach on to a decision on possession. Therefore, there is no merit on what is contended by the appellants herein in this second appeal. As long as the material indicated possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property which was found to be agricultural land, and as long as there is the evidence on record which show that the appellants giving evidence telling the Courts below that the plaint schedule property is different from the property they were claiming, nothing more deserves for consideration concerning injunction. 23. One submission made by learned counsel for appellants is that while suit filed by the plaintiff did not seek for title declaration, the learned trial Court gave categorical finding that the plaintiff established his title and such a finding shall be reversed. It is true on perusal of the judgment of the trial Court one would notice the learned trial Court, instead of merely making an observation for its discussion, it recorded the conclusive finding that the plaintiff established his title. However, when the matter was at first appellate Court the learned Judge was vigilant of the nature of the suit and properly recorded that in a suit for injunction there was no need to record and declare title of the parties. In the context of these facts and circumstances, this Court records that the observation of the trial Court to the extent it recorded the finding that the title of the plaintiff was established has to be set aside. The observations of the trial Court to the extent that evidence on record has been considered for determination of possession incidentally indicated the title of the plaintiff is not disturbed. Except to the above extent this Court finds no merit in these appeals. The appellants failed to show existence of any substantial questions of law to be determined in this second appeal. Therefore these appeals are to be dismissed. 24. In the result, S.A.No.1235 of 2017 is dismissed. Except to the above extent this Court finds no merit in these appeals. The appellants failed to show existence of any substantial questions of law to be determined in this second appeal. Therefore these appeals are to be dismissed. 24. In the result, S.A.No.1235 of 2017 is dismissed. And S.A.No.1193 of 2017 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.