This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-08-1999 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Warangal, in AS.No. 23 of 1993 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the II-Additional District Munsif in OS.No. 1001 of 1989.

2. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri K.Visweshwar Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They instituted the suit for injunction simplicitor in respect of a small house with wooden frames and tin sheds in a vacant site of an extent of 161.7 sq. yards situated in ward No. 16, Railway Gate, Warangal Municipality within the specified boundaries mentioned in the plaint. The said property hereinafter will be referred to as suit schedule property.

4. The appellants pleaded in their plaint that the property was originally purchased by Mohammed Jahinullauddin, who purchased the same from private individual. After his death, the property was succeeded by the appellants, mother Smt. Noorunnisa Begum and after her death the property was devolved on the appellants who are the children of Jahinullauddin and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property on the date of filing of the suit.

5. The appellants submitted that the officials of Warangal Municipality being influenced by a local leader, R.Rajamouli, who was inimical to the appellants illegally attempted to dispossess the appellants by removing the sheds in the suit schedule property. The appellants offered resistance with the help of neighbours by then the appellants’ mother, Smt. Noorunnisa Begum was also alive. She filed OS.No. 761 of 1981 against the respondent-municipality claiming damages. In the said suit though the respondent-municipality admitted the possession of the appellants. It was dismissed and no damages were granted to the appellants’ mother.

6. Subsequently it is said that the appellants raised structures in the same site in which they continued to be in possession and when again there was a threat of dispossession they filed the present suit for bare injunction. The respondent-municipality though made appearance in the suit did not choose to file written statement and remained exparte.

7. On behalf of the appellants, the first appellant was examined as PW-1 but no documentary evidence was let-in. The learned trial Court considering that the appellants failed to prove their title to the property and also taking into account the fact that the earlier suit filed by the appellants mother for damages was dismissed and no documentary evidence was let-in by the appellants in proof of their possession, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred AS. No. 23 of 1993, which was heard and disposed of by the First Additional District Judge, Warangal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. However, in the appeal, the appellants filed a petition under Order-41, Rule-27 of CPC to receive seven documents as additional evidence. The said petition was allowed and the documents filed by the appellants were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7. Ex.A-1 is the Xerox copy of the written statement, Ex.A-2 is the voters list of ward No.16, Ex.A-3 is the electricity bills, Ex.A-4 and A-5 are the letters addressed by the Registrar of Births and Deaths of Municipal Corporation, Warangal to one of the appellants, considering the death of Smt. Noorunnisa Begum, the mother of the plaintiffs and Mohammed Jahinullauddin, Ex.A-6 is the counter filed by the Municipal Corporation in WP.No. 16942 of 1996 filed by the appellants and Ex.A-7 is the counter-affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal in the said writ petition, which was served on the appellants.

9. In the counter-affidavit filed in WP.No. 16942 of 1996 by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, the possession of the appellants was admitted but they were termed as “encroachers” of the land