Point of Law: suit, as framed for the relief of possession by the plaintiff, is appropriate. Declaratory relief, as contended by the defendants 1 to 3, is unnecessary. A trespasser is not entitled for injunction as such.

JUDGMENT :

1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. They preferred A.S.No.182 of 2005 against granting relief in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 and against them in the suit. They also presented A.S.No.1192 of 2017 against dismissal of their counter claim in the same suit. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment now. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs and respondent No.5 is defendant No.4. He is stated to be not a necessary party to this appeal.

2. During pendency of the appeal, first respondent and fourth respondent died. The second respondent is the LR of deceased 4th respondent and it was recorded in this appeal. 6th respondent is the LR of first respondent.

3. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the suit for convenience.

4. The plaintiffs laid the suit against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is an extent of 800 square yards of open site in R.S.No.97/3 along with super structure thereon at Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada, out of 1200 square yards stated to contain A1, B1, C1 and D1 plots of 300 square yards each shown within the boundaries described in the plaint schedule, for the following reliefs:

“(a) Directing the defendants 1 to 3 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of an extent of 800 square yards of site and superstructures if any in R.S.No. 97/3 said to be in the possession of the defendants with unspecified boundaries as per the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 967/90.

(b) for a declaration that the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.967/90 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Vijayawada dated 27.9.1996 is not binding on the plaintiffs

(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men and agents from ever raising any structures in the plaint schedule property in any manner

(d) for costs of the suit and

(e) for grant of such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. A plan is appended to the plaint depicting this plot. It shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘suit plot’ for convenience.

6. It is desirable to consider the pleadings set out by the parties.

7. The plaintiffs claimed that they have been absolute owners with right, title and interest of the suit plot having had purchased the same for valuable consideration from original owner Smt.Namburu Lakshamma under registered sale deeds. They further stated that they negotiated with the original owner, through her GPA, viz., the fourth defendant in the year 1990 itself to purchase this property and that there was delay in obtaining permission from the Special Officer and competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act, Vijayawada. According to the plaintiffs, it was secured on 31.03.1995 and that thereafter they entered into registered sale deeds in respect of the suit plots.

8. The plaintiffs further stated in the plaint that they were not informed of pending suit in O.S.No.967 of 1990 and the disputes between defendants 1 to 3 on one hand and the fourth defendant on the other in respect of the suit plot. In the above suit, according to the plaint averments, the fourth defendant colluded with defendants 1 to 3 filing a written statement to suit their convenience and thus a decree for permanent injunction was obtained in that suit against the fourth defendant. The plaint averments are also that the first plaintiff also attempted to join as a party to the above suit, which was not considered and even otherwise, the outcome in that suit is not binding on them. It is also averred in the plaint that possession of this property was delivered to them immediately upon execution of the sale deeds and that the defendants 1 to 3 without any manner of right, on account of the judgment in the above suit tried to raise superstructures in the suit plot highhandedly upon grabbing this property. In the above circumstances, though defendants 1 to 3 were not in actual possession of any of the suit plots, in view of th