1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1996 passed in O.S.No.9 of 1996 by the Subordinate Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District.

2. The suit O.S.No.9 of 1996 was filed by Uppara Anjinappa and Uppara Aswartha Narayanappa against T. Khasim Sab and Uppara Venkamma. After the first plaintiff died, his legal representatives were added as plaintiffs 3 to 5. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are the owners of Ac.2.92 cents of land in Survey No.391/3 and Ac.1.67 cents of land in Survey No.393/4 of Kotnuru Revenue Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. The case of the plaintiffs case is that Ac.2.92 cents + Ac.1.67 cents = Ac.4.59 cents is one single bit of land. The plaintiffs claim ownership of the suit schedule property both by inheritance from a common ancestor and also by adverse possession. They relied upon the sale deeds of 1890 and 1911, apart from survey and settlement to prove their title. Their case is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land and that they are paying the cist every year.

3. The first defendant, on the other hand, filed a written statement admitting the family genealogy, but denying the title of the plaintiffs. The defendants also raised issues about the existence of the land with specific boundaries and also the correlation between the sale deeds of 1890/1911 with the present suit schedule property. The first defendant’s case is that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same along with T. Narayanacharyulu on 11.08.1993 and subsequently the said Narayanacharyulu also executed a deed in his favour giving up his share in the property in October 1987. The defendants claim title and ownership independently. They deny that the plaintiff can claim title by inheritance and also adverse possession.

4. Basing on the pleadings, the lower Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs have got title over the suit schedule property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs perfected their title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule property of the date of the institution of the suit?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

(v) To what relief?

5. The parties thereafter went to trial. For the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. For the defendants, DWs.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.22 were marked. After the trial and hearing, the lower Court dismissed the suit. It is this judgment that is now challenged in this appeal.

6. This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

7. At the very outset, this Court is of the clear opinion that since the suit is one for a declaration of title and for possession, the burden is squarely on the plaintiffs to prove their title and also their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants cited a judgment which reiterated the position of law that is well-settled viz., Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (AIR 2014 SC 937) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras-12, 14 &15 as under:

“12. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff.

14. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession. This Court in Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira reported in MANU/SC/0181/1958 MANU/SC/0181/1958 : AIR 1959 SC 31 observed that "in a suit for