Patta and title deed pass books issued under the Act, 1971 carry a presumption of title and possession, and this presumption can only be rebutted through an appeal, revision, or by a court of law.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiffs before the learned trial Court filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The respondents herein are the defendants. O.S.No.1240 of 2002 was a suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. After due trial, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittor decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Aggrieved defendants filed A.S.No.81 of 2006 and the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court’s judgment and as a consequence dismissed the suit.

2. It is against that, the plaintiffs have come up with this second appeal. Originally, it was a suit filed by sole plaintiff as against defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives came on record and they pursued the litigation all throughout.

3. On 18.06.2012 this second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as mentioned below :

“Whether on Exs.A.1 and A.2 the title and possession of the appellant can be accepted as true and real?”

4. To appreciate the above substantial question of law, it is relevant to notice the facts and law that unfurled before the lower Courts. The suit was laid stating that Ac.0.33 cents of land in Survey No.342/9 of Naragallu Revenue Village belonged to the ancestors and from there it came to be owned and possessed by sole plaintiff and after his death, on 25.04.2003 it came to the ownership and possession of his successors, who are plaintiff Nos.2 to 7. In recognition of the possession and enjoyment, the Mandal Revenue Officer granted pattadar and title deed pass books. The defendants are utter strangers to the property. However, on 22.11.2002 at about 8:00 A.M. they interfered with the ploughing activities of the deceased 1st plaintiff in the suit land and the same was thwarted successfully. They raised their voice saying that they would see that the deceased 1st plaintiff would be dispossessed. In their written statements, the defendants contended that the boundaries mentioned and the survey number mentioned over the plaint schedule property are incorrect. They gave a schedule of property in the written statement and stated that mother of defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 05.10.1961 purchased the written statement schedule mentioned property. The vendors were Periya Kolandiamma for herself and representing her minor son. That minor son is the 1st plaintiff (since deceased). It is also stated that while the name of mother of 1st plaintiff is Periya Kolandiamma, it was wrongly typed in the above referred sale deed as Peria Govindamma. Having purchased the property, possession was delivered to defendant No.2. Therefore, the deceased 1st plaintiff has no right over the written statement schedule mentioned properties. There was no valid cause of action for the suit. It is also mentioned that the land covered under the sale deed dated 05.10.1961 referred earlier was surveyed and it was found to include Survey No.342/6A. In recognition of right and possession of defendant No.2, pattadar and title deed pass books were given to defendant No.2 by the revenue authorities. The boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule would include the lands covered by Survey No.342/6A. On those pleadings, learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial :

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?”

5. At the trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked for plaintiffs. For defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

6. Both sides’ witnesses gave evidence in support of the respective pleadings of the parties. PW.2 was a neighbouring ryot, who spoke about possession of suit schedule property by 1st plaintiff and the interference on pa