In a suit for injunction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession, and the question of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration when possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the unsuccessful appellants/plaintiffs assailing the decree and judgment, dtd. 9/11/2006, of the learned VII Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, passed in A.S.No.289 of 2005.

2. By the said decree and judgment, the learned VII Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, dismissed the first appeal with costs, and had confirmed the decree and judgment, dtd. 27/8/2003 of the learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, passed in O.S.No.1070 of 1990.

3. I heard the submissions of Sri T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/plaintiffs ('plaintiffs', for brevity) and Learned Senior Counsel Sri V S R Anjaneyulu for the respondents/defendants, and perused the material record.

4. The appeal is coming up for consideration/judgment on the following limited aspects: - 'Whether the questions, which are raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal or any other substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal?

5. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The respondents 1 to 9 are the defendants. The parties in this second appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the original suit, for convenience and clarity.

6. To begin with, it is necessary to take note of the respective pleadings/cases of the parties and the events that led to the filing of this second appeal.

7. The case of the plaintiffs as is borne out by the material on record, in brief, is that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land; The plaintiffs are the sisters and are the daughters of Late Syed Galab, who was the original owner of schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of vacant land situated in Bhavanipuram village in assessment No.30562; The said Syed Galab had gifted the plaint schedule property to his wife Doula Bi being the mother of plaintiffs about 30 years back. Ever since the said Doula Bi had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till her death on 29/6/1988; The said Doula Bi died leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs; So, after the death of Doula Bi, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is further contended that the 1st plaintiff used to live in the said house along with her mother during her lifetime; The 1st defendant, who is the younger brother of Doula Bi, all sudden, without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs, began to dig the foundations on 12/11/1990 in the schedule property, but the same was stopped by the interference of the elders; The 1st defendant died and as such, the defendants 2 to 6 being the legal heirs of the 1st defendant were brought on record as defendants.

8. The case of the defendants that the plaint schedule is neither true nor correct in its details; The plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of facts and suggestions of falsehoods; Though the properties of Syed Galib were gifted to his wife in the year 1960 under the gift deed dtd. 21/9/1960, she did not enjoy the said property with exclusive possession of the property till her death on 29/6/1988; The said Doula Bi executed a gift deed in favour of 1st defendant on 21/8/1961 under registered document No.3270/1961 in Sub Registrar Office, Vijayawada, and on the same day delivered possession to the 1st defendant; In furtherance of said gift deed, the 1st defendant acquired title to three items of property and out of the said three items, an extent of Ac.1-87 cents in R.S.No.5/2 of Edupugallu Village was periodically gifted by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs under different gift deeds commencing from 6/5/1954 till 25/4/2022, when the marriage of the plaintiffs were performed; The plaintiffs are fully aware of the original gift made by Doula Bi in favour of the 1st defend