C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two second app?als arise out of two cross-suits for permanent injunction filed by the parties against one another in respect of the self-same property. The only difference between the two suits is that whereas O. S. No. 80 of 1986 is in respect of the lands covered by Survey Nos. 74 and 89, the other suit O. S. No. 303 of 1990 is in respect of the lands covered by Survey no. 89 only. The two suits were tried together. Both the suits were filed on the basis of prior possession without setting up any claim of title, and attempts to interfere with such possession by the opposite party. However, in the course of the evidence, some attempt appears to have been made by both parties to make out title. But both parties mainly relied on the entries in the revenue records like Pahanis and land revenue receipts in proof of their possession.

( 2 ) ON a consideration ot the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court decreed O. S. No. 80 of 86 and dismissed O. S. No. 303 of 90. The trial Court decided the suits only on the basis of possession without going into the question of title and leaving it open to the parties to establish their title in separate proceedings. While preferring appeals questioning the judgment of the trial Court, the defendants in O. S. No. 80 of 86 and plaintiffs in O. S. No. 303 of 90 simultaneously filed a separate suit being O. S. No. 82 of 95 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, warangal, for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff in o. S. No. 80 of 86. The said suit is still pending.

( 3 ) IN the appeals the appellate Court however, went into the question of title and on a consideration of the evidence already on record and also on the basis of certain documents which were filed by the appellants as additional evidence and which were marked as Exs. B-11 to B-18, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff in o. S. No. 80 of 86 miserably failed to establish his right, title and possession over the suit property as on the date of the filing of the suit and on the other hand, the appellants-defendants could prove the right, title and possession of Chinnaiah, their predecessor in interest over the suit land. Accordingly the appellate Court allowed the appeals and dismissed O. S. No. 80 of 86 and decreed O. S. No. 303 of 90 with costs throughout. Hence these two second appeals by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 80 of 86.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, hereinafter the appellant will be referred to as plaintiff and the respondents as defendants .

( 5 ) SRI L. Narasimha Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has raised the following contentions: (1) In a suit for mere injunction the question of title cannot be gone into or decided and more so, when a title suit is already filed and pending. The appellate Court, therefore, committed an illegality in going into the question of title. (2) The appellate Court erred in receiving additional evidence and in disposing of the matters on the basis of such evidence without proper proof. (3) The decision of the appellate Court is based entirely on the correction of the entries in the revenue records which were made during the pendency of the suits contrary to the interim orders granted by the civil Court. (4) The appellate Court acted illegally in relying upon the evidence which was contrary to the pleadings. Such evidence has to be totally eschewed from consideration, whereas the plea of the respondents was that the appellate was a trespasser without any manner of right in the suit, their evidence is to the effect that he was a tenant and he surrendered the tenancy. (5) The learned Counsel alternatively submitted that when once tenancy is admitted, in the absence of any proof that the alleged surrender was in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the appellant must be deemed to be continuing in possession and he is entitled for injunction to protect his possession ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document