JUDGMENT :

1. Defendants in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The property in dispute between the parties is described in the plaint schedule as 1,000 square foot of vacant site with a thatched hut in it situate in Survey No.3 of Daravari Thota in Ongole of Prakasam District. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.889 of 2005 seeking for permanent injunction as against the defendants. After due trial, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved of it, plaintiff preferred A.S.No.129 of 2013 and the learned VII Additional District Judge, Ongole allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and thus, it granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Aggrieved by it, the defendants in the suit preferred this second appeal.

2. A learned judge of this Court on 01.05.2015 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law.

“1. Whether the lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herein suppressed the fact of vacating the order of status quo passed in W.P.No.8697 of 2012 on 27.09.2013 itself and the revenue authorities have put the appellants in possession of the plaint schedule land vide proceedings No.Rc.B/1212/2005, dt. 28.11.2013?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in disposing of the appeal without formulating relevant questions for adjudication and whether the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court is perverse?”

3. The above questions have arisen in the context of the following facts:

In the plaint, it is stated that plaintiff is a landless poor and he is engaged in hill stone cutting and he occupied the suit schedule site and raised a hut and this property originally belonged to the Government. After thorough enquiry, Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole granted D.K.Patta in D.K.No.117/99 on 06.05.1990. Accordingly, plaintiff has been residing in the thatched hut peacefully. Plaintiff has no other properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are spouses and defendant No.3 is mother of defendant No.2. They are natives of Madanur and have got their own properties there. In a rented house defendant Nos.1 and 2 are living towards northern side of the suit schedule property. These defendants developed evil eye and without any right or possession they have been making efforts to dispossess the plaintiff out of the suit schedule property and they wanted to occupy it illegally. In these circumstances, plaintiff had to sue them. The prayer made in the suit is to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As against that, the defendants in their written statement apart from denying the plaint mentioned allegations specifically pleaded that the patta alleged in the plaint is fake and the suit schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of 2nd defendant for a long time and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of it. Revenue authorities enquired and found the patta alleged by the plaintiff is a forged document and he is not in possession and enjoyment of the property. They further stated that revenue authorities found the plaintiff as a land grabber and has been in the habit of creating fabricated documents such as patta. Plaintiff filed photographs along with the plaint and such photographs cannot sustain the claim and the photographs do not belong to suit property. Written statement further mentions about various properties owned and possessed by plaintiff and his family members and as to how they used to obtain assignments and dispose of those properties etc. It is then stated that plaintiff has neither title nor possession over the property. Plaintiff also filed C.D.313 of 2005 before the Consumer Forum and thereafter, not pressed it since revenue authorities contested it. It is then stated that about Plot Nos.38-A and 37-A in Survey No.3 of Annavarappadu defendan