This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 28.01.1999 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in A.S.No.64 of 1992 reversing the decree and judgment dated 05.03.1992 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Guntur in O.S.No.316 of 1985.

I have heard Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri A.Rajendrababu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The plaintiffs are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as ‘the plaintiffs and the defendants’.

The brief facts of the case necessary for considering the second appeal may be stated as follows:

The version of the plaintiffs is that the deceased first-plaintiff Podili Kotamma encroached upon a site belonging to the Guntur municipality in Venkataraonagar in the year 1965 and constructed two huts therein and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, which is hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaint schedule property’. She filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.

It was the contention of the defendants that the first defendant purchased the Plot No.13, which is an extent of 78.3/9 sq. yards for a consideration of Rs.300/- and the second defendant purchased the plot No.11, which is an extent of 54 sq. yards for a consideration of Rs. 189/- under registered sale deeds from the Guntur Municipality and took possession of the respective house sites. Under the said sale deeds, they constructed houses and they have been living therein. They admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners of Plot No.12, but the contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have never been in possession and enjoyment of plot Nos.11 and 13 purchased by them and therefore, they are not entitled for the relief of injunction.

The trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

Whether the plaint schedule property is situated between the house sites of 2nd defendant and her husband?

Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs and DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

The consistent case of the plaintiff is that she has encroached upon municipal site of an extent of 200 sq. yards in the year 1965, having raised two huts, residing therein with her four sons and has been making representations to the municipality to issue patta in her favour. It is also her case that 60 other persons of Guntur town also occupied the land in the same vicinity constructed thatched houses/huts and have been residing there since 29 years prior to the filing of the suit.

The entire documentary evidence let in by the plaintiffs is nothing but the correspondence with the officials of Guntur Municipality and revenue authorities seeking issuance of patta in her name. Among the documents, Exs.A.18 is the notice issued by the Commissioner-cum-Special Officer, Guntur Municipality, Guntur to the plaintiffs asking them to remove the encroachment, whereas Ex.A.19 is the office copy of the reply notice issued by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Guntur Municipality. From the correspondence, it can be understood that undoubtedly the plaintiff has been in possession of the schedule mentioned property and she has been making sincere efforts to obtain patta from the Guntur Municipality. Even Exs.B.1 and B.2-sale deeds filed by the defendants also indicate that in between their sites purchased from the municipality, the site under occupation of the plaintiff is situate.

The learned trial Court considering the above mentioned documents and evidence of plaintiff and 6 other witnesses examined on her behalf, gave a definite and specific finding that though the plaintiff has no title to the schedule m