The court emphasized the importance of properly appreciating the evidence in property disputes and highlighted the limited relevance of the status quo order and the Advocate Commissioner’s report in deciding possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. Plaintiffs before the trial court filed this appeal under section 100 CPC assailing the judgment dated 07.04.2015 of learned VII Additional District Judge, Ongole in A.S.No.124 of 2013. The sole respondent herein is the sole defendant before the trial court.

2. O.S.No.849 of 2005 is a suit filed by two plaintiffs as against sole defendant seeking perpetual injunction to protect possession of two plots of house sites described in the plaint schedule. After due contest, by a judgment dated 29.07.2013, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. Aggrieved by it, the sole defendant preferred A.S.No.124 of 2013. After due hearing, by a judgment dated 07.04.2015, the learned VII Additional District Judge, Ongole allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court’s judgment and as a consequence dismissed the suit. The aggrieved plaintiffs are before this court in this second appeal.

4. On 01.05.2015, a learned Judge of this court admitted the second appeal on formulating the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the learned first appellate court failed to appreciate the fact that the status quo order dated 27.09.2013 granted by this court in W.P.No.8697 of 2012 was already vacated and reached to erroneous conclusions assuming that the status quo order was still subsisting?

2. Whether the learned first appellate court misread the evidence and illegally concluded its findings based on Advocate Commissioner’s report with reference to possession of disputed property and thereby its judgment suffers from perversity requiring interference?

5. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments. Essentially the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants supports the view taken by the trial court. Whereas the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent support the view taken by the first appellate court.

POINT NOS.1 and 2

Property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule. Item No.1 which is described as Plot – A refers to a plot of house site in an extent of 400 Sq.feet bearing plot No.38-A in Survey No.3 of Annavarappadu Village. Item No.2 which is described as Plot – B is a house plot in an extent of 1,000 Sq.feet bearing plot No.37-A in Survey No.3 of Annavarappadu Village. Both these items of properties situate in Ongole District. Stating that D.K. Pattas were granted to the affect that Plot - A of plaint schedule was granted to plaintiff No.1 and Plot – B of the plaint schedule was granted to plaintiff No.2 as they were landless poor. The plaintiffs laid the suit alleging that since the time of grant of pattas on 18.04.2005, they have been in possession and enjoyment of these properties and the defendant without any manner of right and with a view to grab the properties continuously threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs and therefore seeking protection of their possession, they filed the suit for permanent injunction. These two plots are contiguous to each other and a plan showing both the plots is also appended to the plaint.

6. The sole defendant in the suit contested the suit wherein he denied the plaint mentioned allegations stating that they are incorrect. He denied the possession claimed by the plaintiff as false. At para No. 5 of the written statement, he categorically pleaded that the pattas alleged in the plaint were duly cancelled by the Revenue Authorities. At para No.7, he pleaded that the defendant has no connection with these plaint schedule properties and unnecessarily the suit is filed against him and there is no cause of action to sue him and in respect of these properties one Sri Bathula Venkata Nageswararao filed O.S.No.889 of 2005 and he is in possession of these properties. For these reasons, he sought dismissal of the suit.

7. On the above rival pleadings, the learned trial court settled the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of