M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. He filed a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and to issue mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the basement raised in the suit site and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit site. The plaintiff claims title by virtue of a sale deed dated 30-3-1967 in respect of the suit site ad-measuring 131 sq. yards from Manukonda Madhava Rao, who in turn purchased the said property under Registered Sale Deed dated 20-8-1966 from Bezawada Pundari and Namburi Siva Satyanarayana. The defendant claimed that she had purchased site of an extent of 117 sq. yards under Registered sale deed dated 2-11-1967 and 213sq. yards under Registered sale deed dated 13-11-1970 from Bezawada Pundari.

( 2 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit insofar as title of the plaintiff is concerned and with regard to Issue No. 2, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction for recovery (sic. removal) of basement and in respect of Issue No. 3, the suit was decreed for perpetual injunction.

( 3 ) IT is relevant to note here that the trial Court observed that the defendant was a trespasser over the suit property and that in the interest of justice, the possession must be recovered from the illegal trespasser. Needless to reiterate that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not for possession, but for declaration of Title and possession. The Appellate Court noted the said inconsistency in the judgment of the Trial Court and observed as under:"as already pointed out while giving finding on issue No. 1 about title and possession, the lower Court found that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, but while considering the defendant s contention that the plaintiff s suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of possession, the lower Court went to the extent of holding that the plaintiff sought for relief of possession of the property, which is factually incorrect. Such a reasoning of the Court below, for the purpose of distinguishing decision of Supreme Court, is most unfortunate. In this suit, the plaintiff never claimed possession of the property. On the other hand, the plaintiff sought for declaration of his title and possession and for consequential permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. "

( 4 ) AS regards the possession of the plaintiff over the suit site is concerned, the Courts below found that the defendant is proved to be in possession of the property since 1971, if not earlier by raising compound wall and the plaintiff is proved to be out of possession of the property by the date of the suit. This finding is based upon Ex. B-3 proceedings of the Municipality, Khammam dated 30-4-1971 whereby permission was granted to the defendant to construct the compound wall. Ex. B-10 is the approved Plan signed by the Commissioner, municipality dated 1-5-1971 and Exs. B-14,15 and 16 are the proceedings in o. S. No. 55 of 1971. It was filed by defendant against the Municipality and they show that the then Munsif Magistrate had visited the suit site and he made observations in those proceedings, that there is a basement with a compound wall.

( 5 ) THE trial Court had in the light of evidence on record observed that the evidence would show that the defendant has constructed the compound wall around the suit property in the year 1971 itself and the Appellate Court held that there was overwhelming evidence to show the total extent of site in possession of the defendant is 330 sq. yards around which the defendant constructed the compound wall as long back as in 1971.

( 6 ) THE Appellate Court considered the question of maintainability of the suit as it was found by both the Courts that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property and had not ask

Click Here to Read the rest of this document