IMPORTANT POINT
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession and incidental title to the property. Clear title supported by documents is necessary to claim permanent injunction based on possession.

JUDGMENT

1. The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dtd. 2/3/2016, passed in A.S.No.170 of 2010 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District (in short "the first appellate court") in confirming the Judgment and decree dtd. 26/7/2010 in O.S.No.873 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati (in short "the trial court").

2. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience.

3. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff; respondent is the defendant before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its office bearers, agents, followers etc., from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The averments in the plaint, in brief are as under:- The plaint occupied the plaint schedule property and in recognition of her possession, the revenue authorities have granted B.Memos dtd. 2/3/1980 and 5/4/1981 and she has been paying cist for the site. After due enquiry, she was also granted a Patta dtd. 14/4/1982 for an extent of Ac. 0.05 cents in Sy.No.430 of Karakambadi Village Accounts bearing Plot No.2 and house bearing No.19-377 on Tirupati-Chennai road. The plaintiff constructed a shop and doing business therein by obtaining electricity service connections one in the name of her father-in-law and another one in the name of her brother-in-law. Except the plaintiff, the defendant and anyone has no right and title or interest over the plaint schedule property. On 15/8/2007 the defendant with his office bearers and followers attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and with great difficulty the plaintiff resisted their attempts. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant in the suit filed written statement by denying all material allegations and contended that there is hut in the suit schedule property belongs to Jayaprakash and others and the plaintiff having trespassed into the suit schedule land by claiming the Hotel as her own including the site. The defendant Church in order to construct Orphanage home for girls in the suit schedule site has made necessary arrangements and when the suit schedule was about to be handed over to the defendant by Jayaprakash and his brother, the plaintiff has trespassed and occupied the same. The suit schedule property is not a DKT land and it is a private land belongs to defendant. The DKT Patta filed by the plaintiff is a fabricated and spurious document created for the purpose of knock away the Church property. One S. Jayaprakash and others, who are sons of late Sivarama Nair have filed O.S.No.1318 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for injunction restraining the defendant therein not to evict them by force claiming tenancy with the defendant therein and the said suit was decreed in favour of the defendant on 23/2/2007 with a direction to deliver vacant possession of the suit site within three months by Jayaprakash and others. But they failed to do so. The actual tenants namely Jayaprakash and others approached the defendant for compromise and vacated the suit premises, while handing over the suit site, the plaintiff highhandedly trespassed and occupied the premises and filed a suit. The defendant filed a suit for damages against Jayaprakash and others in O.S.No. 56 of 2007 and the same was decreed by awarding damages of Rs.5,00,000.00 and filed O.E.P.No.56 of 2007 which pending. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court eventually framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? Based on the above additional written statement pleadings, the trial court eventually framed the following additional issues were settled: 1. W