The plaintiffs must establish their title to claim possession, and lack of evidence to support damages claim leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the decree and Judgment dated 23.03.2009 in O.S. No.195 of 2005 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'trial court').

2. The appellants, who are the plaintiffs, filed the suit vide O.S. No.195 of 2005 seeking recovery of possession of the schedule property after evicting the defendants, their men and agents from the suit schedule property and also for damages of Rs.1,00,000/-for unauthorized occupation of the schedule property.

3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint are as under :

The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of property spanning 170 sq. yards inclusive of an R.C.C., House with Door No.39-6-59 situated in Sy.No.9/5-part, 9/5A at Muralinagar (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’). The acquisition of the property took place through a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2005 for valid consideration from Ganni Veera Lakshmi. The plaintiffs could understand that the plaintiffs' vendors permitted the defendants to stay in the suit schedule property, despite giving time by the previous owners, the defendants failed to vacate the suit schedule property. Upon the transfer of ownership to the plaintiffs, the permission, if any, given to the defendants came to an end. The plaintiffs issued a quit notice dated 27.08.2005 demanding the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property by the night of 30.09.2005. The defendants refused to receive the registered notices. Since the defendants have been in unauthorized possession of the suit schedule property, they are liable to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. The defendants filed their written statements, asserting that the ages of defendants 1 and 2 were wrongly shown, which highlight the plaintiffs lack of knowledge and the suit was filed to have a wrongful gain over the defendants. Smt.Ganni Veera Lakshmi and the defendants entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.05.1998 regarding the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. An initial payment of Rs.1,00,000/-was made to Ganni Veera Lakshmi, and she promised to execute the registered sale deed within three months after obtaining the necessary clearance from the competent authorities, but she could not get the same. On 11.04.1999, G.Veera Lakshmi’s husband, G.V.V.S.Murthy, received Rs.80,000/-from the defendants and executed another agreement on the even date and took away the earlier agreement of sale dated 12.05.1998. Assurance was given that U.L.C., clearance certificate would be obtained within a month. However, G.Veera Laksmi and her husband handed over the suit schedule property to these defendants, who have been in possession. After that, the defendants sent a demand draft bearing No.544541 dated 17.05.1999 for Rs.8, 200/- drawn on S.B.I., Kailasapuram Branch, Visakhapatnam. Even on receipt of the total consideration, G.Veera Lakshmi and her husband used to postpone the execution of a registered sale deed. Since the defendants’ vendors did not respond to their demands, they issued a legal notice dt.20.06.1999 to G.Veera Lakshmi’s husband. The G.Veera Lakshmi's husband replied, denying the facts of the defendants' notice. The defendants paid the sale consideration with the mediation of one P.Radha Krishnaiah, Principal I.T.I, Visakhapatnam. The defendants have constructed a shop adjacent to the suit schedule property, and one of the tenants has been doing Kirana business in the shop for the last three years. G.Veera Lakshmi influenced the authorities of the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and got her name mutated in the records by suppressing the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants. G.Veera Lakshmi, in active collusion with the plaintiffs, fabricated an agreement of sale for Rs.13,00,500/-and filed this suit through the plaintiffs to