SA/1649/2011 of Liyakhat Ali Shriyar, Vs Syed Jalaluddin Quadri, on 30 December 2011

JUDGMENT:

S.A .No. 1649 of 2011

This Second Appeal has been filed aggrievedby the decree and judgment dated 6.09.2011 passedin A.S.No. 122 of 2006 by the IX Additional ChiefJudge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad ,dismissing the appeal confirming the judgment anddecree dated 20.10.2005 passed in O.S. No. 1009 of1999 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad.

Appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.1009 of 1999. The suit was filed for eviction of thedefendant from the plaint schedule property forrecovery of arrears, mesne profits. The trial courtdecreed the suit for Rs. 1,02, 541/- with interest at6% per annum from the date of decree till the date ofrealization. The trial Court also directed that theplaintiff is also entitled for future mesne profits at Rs.2,200/- per month from the date of suit till the date ofdelivery of possession of the plaint schedule propertyin E.P.No. 66 of 2001 on payment of proper Courtfee. Aggrieved by the same, defendant in the suit filed appeal and the appellate court dismissed theappeal with costs confirming the judgment anddecree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, thepresent Second Appeal is filed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for theappellant-defendant and also perused the entirematerial made available on record.

I have perused the order impugned. The trialcourt considered the matter elaborately and decreedthe suit. On appeal, the appellate court dismissedthe appeal with costs confirming the decree andjudgment of the trial Court holding that there are noreasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court It is well settled by a catena of decisions of theSupreme Court that in the second appeal filed underSection 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Courtcannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at byboth the courts below. Having heard the learnedcounsel for the appellant and on perusing thegrounds in the memorandum of second appeal, thiscourt is of the view that the substantial questions oflaw framed in the second appeal involveappreciation of facts and evidence on record, whichboth the courts below have elaborately considered.

This Court cannot once again appreciate the factsand evidence on record, that too, in the secondappeal. In the above circumstances, there is noquestion of law much less substantial question oflaw, warranting interference by this court.

The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stageof admission.

______________________

GHULAMMOHAMMED, J

DATE: 30.12.2011

KA