The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and in this case, the Municipal Corporation failed to establish that the properties fell within the reserve open spaces as claimed.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant-Guntur Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner laid the challenge under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugning the judgment dated 18.07.2006 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.190 of 2004. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs who filed O.S.No.190 of 2004.

2. The prayer in the said suit was for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation-defendant from interfering with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. After due trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and granted all the reliefs as against the defendant-Municipal Corporation. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-Municipal Corporation presented this appeal.

3. Heard arguments of Sri M.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Guntur Municipal Corporation. For respondents, Sri G.Ramesh Babu, the learned counsel submitted arguments.

4. On scrutiny of the entire record and the impugned judgment and the rival submissions on both sides, the following points fall for consideration in this appeal:

1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are reserve open spaces in the approved layout plan No.52 of 1972 or not?

2. Whether the impugned judgment is erroneous on facts and law?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

5. A vacant site in an extent of 653 square yards (item No.1) and another vacant site of an extent of 632 square yards (item No.2) are shown in the plaint schedule and they are stated to be contiguous to each other. As per the averments in the plaint and the description of the plaint schedule, there is an approved layout plan No.52 of 1972 concerning land in D.No.5 in an extent of Ac.12.28 cents in Koritepadu Village of Guntur Municipal area, Ward No.18, Block No.23, T.S.No.1749/1, 2. Specific boundaries for each of these two plots are given. In the plaint, it was alleged that in the name of each of these plaintiffs their mother Smt. K.Saraswathi purchased these properties under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1981 and since then these plaintiffs became absolute owners of these properties. The vendors were Sri G.Kodanda Rama Raju and Sri Atchuta Rama Raju. The vendors of plaintiffs had purchased these properties under a registered sale deed dated 04.05.1980 and 14.09.1981 from one Chebrolu Hari Prasada Rao.

6. While the plaintiffs have been owning this property and indulged in a little ground work to materialize their ambition to construct a residential building in the said property, officers of Municipal Corporation interfered and claimed that the property belonged to Guntur Municipal Corporation. It is in those circumstances they laid the suit praying for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and title holders over the plaint schedule properties and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Municipal Corporation and its men from in any way interfering with or causing obstructions to the plaintiffs in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties.

7. In response to it, Guntur Municipal Corporation filed its written statement wherein the plaint mentioned allegations are denied as incorrect and expressed its ignorance about the alleged purchase made by the plaintiffs from their respective vendors. It then stated that as mentioned in the plaint in D.No.5 for an extent of Ac.5.46 cents there was an approved layout plan No.52 of 72 which was subsequently revised in L.P.No.10 of 84. The said layout was approved in the name of Sri Ch.Hanumaiah and his brothers. As per the original as well as revised layout, the suit schedule plots fall within the reserve open space in the layout. Under the law the reserve open spaces vested with the Municipal Corporation. Sale and purchase of these properties is irregular. The plaint mentioned the sale transactions did not take p