L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) PARTIES are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 93 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda are appellants herein. Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction in respect of a and b suit schedule properties. According to them, the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint "a schedule property comprising Ac. 20. 10 guntas and the second plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint b schedule property over an extent of Ac. 4. 15 guntas. The defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiffs . According to them, both the items of property were held by one Mr. Narayana Rao and after his death, they have succeeded to his rights. It was their case that they never parted with the land in any manner and taking advantage of their close relationship with the family, plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed this suit.

( 3 ) THE first plaintiff was examined in part as P. W. 1. Since he was not subjected to further chief and cross-examinations, his evidence was eschewed. Thereafter, p. Ws. 2 to 6 were examined and documents exs. Al to A66 were marked. On behalf of defendants. D. Ws. l to 6 were examined and documents Exs. Bl to B24 were marked. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property and thereby decreed the suit through its judgment dated 22. 6. 2001. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed A. S. No. 19 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Miryalaguda and the same was dismissed through judgment dated 25. 8. 2003.

( 4 ) SRI V. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the defendants (appellants), submits that the evidence on record establishes the title and possession of the defendants and that the first plaintiff has acknowledged their possession through his deposition as P. W. 1in O. S. No. 17 of 1956. He submits that once it is established that p. W. I had acquiesced in the title and possession of the defendants, it was obligatory on his part to explain as to how he had assumed the possession of that very property and in the absence of the same, the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act needs to be drawn in favour of the defendants. He places reliance upon the Judgment of supreme Court in Ambika Prasad v. Ram ekbal Rai, AIR 1966 SC 605.

( 5 ) HE further contends that the Lower appellate Court has committed material irregularity in not framing points for discussion. It is his case that in the absence of formulation of clear points, the lower appellate Court cannot be said to have undertaken an effective discussion of the matter and thereby there is non-compliance with Order 41 CPC.

( 6 ) SRI Phani Kumar, learned Counsel for plaintiffs (respondents), submits that in a suit for permanent injunction, the only factor that should weigh with the Court is possession spread over a fairly long period and in the present case, the plaintiffs were able to establish their possession at least from 1972 onwards, through clinching documentary evidence. He contends that though the Appellate Court has not framed separate points for discussion, in the body of the judgment, the Court had undertaken extensive discussion covering all aspects of the matter.

( 7 ) THE suit was filed for permanent injunction. It is settled principle of law that basis for granting relief in such suits is possession over the suit schedule property as on the relevant date. A rider is always added to the effect that the possession shall not be transitory or illegal in nature. Such possession shall not be unlawful and be spread over a fairly long period. In the present case, the plaintiffs have placed before the Trial Court, the Pattedar pass book, title deeds and entries in pahanis consistently at least for 1 1/2 decades prior to filing of the suit. So far as defendants arc concerned, they have placed revenue records in their favour up to the year 1972 or so. Thereafter, they did not place any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document