L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the defendant in o. S. No. 125 of 1981 on the file of the subordinate Judge at Karimnagar assails the judgment and decree therein. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. All the plaintiffs claim to have purchased different extents of plots in s. No. 277/2 of Choppadandi village through sale deeds dated 11-11-1976, 22-11-1976 and 14-2-1977 in Exs. A-2 to A-4. According to them the 1st defendant was the original owner of the said land admeasuring ac. 1. 01 gunta. In the year 1956 the 1st defendant exchanged the same with one mr. Bujidi Muttam Bhadraiah for the land is s. No. 22 and Bhadraiah in turn sold the same to one Mr. Chintala Yellaiah under an unregistered sale deed dated 16-5-1957 (Ex. A-5 ). Ever since the date of purchase under Ex. A-5, Chintala Yellaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Yellaiah and his son Mallaiah have sold the two plots in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant No. 3 in the year 1976 and 1977. The defendants 1 and 4 to 7 have been trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plots purchased by them. Hence they approached the court seeking relief of declaration of title on the basis of the document in Ex. A-5 as well as the adverse possession enjoyed by the predecessor-in- title.

( 3 ) THE defendants filed written statement disputing the very factum of exchange and the subsequent sale. According to them the land in S. No. 277/2 was always held, enjoyed and possessed by the 1st defendant. Thereafter he sold plots therein in favour of other defendants and neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor have the title or possession over the same. On the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether Chintala Yellaiah and the alleged predecessor-in-tile of the plaintiffs had acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession and whether the sale deeds set-up by the plaintiffs are true and whether the plaintiffs acquired title to the suit lands under them? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? (3) To what relief?

( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs P. Ws. l to 9 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-42 were marked. On behalf of the defendants D. Ws. l to 8 were examined and documents Exs. B-1 to B-20 were marked. In addition to the said documentary evidence Exs. C-1 and C-2 were also marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) SRI Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the defendants, submits that the trial court ought not to have granted the decree and declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, when there was no valid conveyance of title in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also his contention that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the factum of their being in possession for the required period or at any rate before filing the suit. It is also his contention that even the so called possession of the plaintiffs was unlawful and the same cannot confer any title on them not does it entitle them to seek injunction against the rightful owner.

( 6 ) SRI P. V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand submits that the evidence on record had clearly established that ever since the year 1957, ch. Yellaiah, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, was in possession of the suit schedule property till the year 1976 and thereafter the plaintiffs were put in possession of the same and the same was sufficient to constitute adverse possession and entitle the plaintiffs to get declaration of title in their favour. It is also his contention that once the record establishes the continuance of possession and passage of long period, the relief of injunction was almost inevitable.

( 7 ) IN view of the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document