In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove that he was in possession of the property on the date the suit was filed. Tax receipts, electricity bills, and commissioner's reports can be used to establish possession.

JUDGMENT :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

1. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2021 in A.S. No. 123 of 2017 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Nellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2017 in O.S. No. 150 of 2011 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore the above appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and followers from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

4. The averments, in brief, in the plaint are that the plaintiff’s father acquired the plaint schedule property about 65 years back and ever since he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that after the lifetime of father and mother, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of the same, that during the lifetime of plaintiff’s father, he constructed asbestos sheeted house in four Ankanams leaving remaining 20 Ankanams as vacant site, in which coconut trees, Guava trees and other trees were planted along with open toilets and kitchen; that property tax is being paid to the Panchayat regularly vide assessment No. 435 and mother of plaintiff also obtained electricity service connection; that in the year 2004, defendants, neighbours, highhandedly attempted to trespass into the schedule property at X1 and X2 points by removing the old collapsed brick wall, resulted in filing suit O.S. No. 1148 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore by the mother of plaintiff; that I.A. No. 1110 of 2004 was filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features; that commissioner’s report proved possession and enjoyment of schedule property by the mother of plaintiff; that plaintiff’s mother died on 02.10.2005; that the plaintiff, who is only son, is working at SHAR Centre, could not prosecute the suit; that the suit O.S. No. 1148 of 2004 was dismissed for non-prosecution; that after death of his mother, plaintiff succeeded to the schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same uninterruptedly; that on 30.12.2020 when the plaintiff came to the plaint schedule property from Sriharikota to perform Annadanam to poor people in memory of his mother, he found that 20 years old Guava tree situated on eastern side of the schedule site was removed with its roots by the defendants and their men in order to encroach the site at X1 and X2 points; that defendants have their own way from the backside of their house connected to the main road and the defendants have no manner of right or title over ABCD site; that after seeing the highhanded attempts of defendants, the plaintiff immediately approached the Superintendent of Police, Nellore and lodged a complaint on 31.12.2020, which was registered as Crime No. 28 of 2010; but the defendants are openly proclaiming that they are having muscle and manpower and hence, filed the suit.

5. 1st Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by 2nd defendant. It was contended inter-alia that 1st defendant got landed property of an extent of Ac. 0.42 cents settled by 2nd defendant; that mother of the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction and later the same was dismissed for non-prosecution; that temporary shed was constructed in the road margin in front of plaint schedule property; that after dismissal of the suit, 2nd defendant settled property in favour of 1st defendant and since then 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment property adjacent land of plaint schedule property; that defendants paved way for ingress and egress from the patta lands towards main road; that taking advantage of dilapidated shed, the plaintiff fabricated the tax receipts; that the R & B department is also necessary party to the suit and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. During trial of suit, p