( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the reversing judgment/dated 25. 2. 1991 passed by the principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati in AS No. 49 of 1982. The 1st respondent herein was the plaintiff and the appellant herein is the defendant in OS No. 620 of 1978 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tirupati. The respondents 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of the plaintiff and have been brought on record in this appeal. The parties are being referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a strip of open site admeasuring 4 ft. North-South and 45 ft. East-West situated in between the sites of the plaintiff and the defendant, in Venkatagiri village. The disputed site is shown in the plaint b schedule. The site along with the thatched hut therein belonging to the plaintiff is shown in plaint a schedule. The site and hut of the defendant is situated to the north of the disputed site. The claim of the plaintiff is that the disputed site shown in plaint b Schedule forms part of plaint a schedule site admeasuring 30 ft North-South, 45 ft. East-West, that it is his ancestral property, that it has been in possession of his ancestors and they exercised the rights of ownership paying the panchayal taxes etc. , for the thatched house situated thereon bearing No. 11/39 and that after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat under Rxs. A1 and A2, he started construction of compound wall around the a schedule site and that the defendant without having any manner of right obstructed the plaintiff with the construction work claiming that he has got right and title to the suit site. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the disputed suit site and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said site. The defendant disputed the claim of the plaintiff and filed a written statement contending that he is not the owner of the disputed plaint b schedule site, that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the same, that the defendant alone is in possession, enjoyment of the said site exclusively and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE trial Court settled the relevant issues based on the pleadings. During the course of trial. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. Al to AB were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex. B1 was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession to the suit property. As against that judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the appeal A. S. No. 49 of 1982 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Tirupati. The lower appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff has established his title and possession over the disputed site. Challenging the said finding of the lower appellate Court, the defendant has come up with this Second Appeal.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on either side. The learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the impugned judgment in A. S. No. 49 of 1982 and that of the trial Court and also the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower appellate Court committed error in decreeing the suit, declaring the title of the plaintiff on the weakness of the defendant s case while the plaintiff s title deed Ex. B1 do not establish his title to the disputed suit site and that it is well settled that the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his own case and must establish his title independently. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the finding of the lower