IMPORTANT POINT
In title suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title, even if defendants do not contest; mere possession is insufficient for a declaration of title.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 27.08.2007, in O.S.No.204 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a Suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are having title and possession over the suit schedule property and to grant relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the son of one Narasimhulu, who used to enjoy the plaint schedule property along with other brothers and co-parceners. In the family partition the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Narasimhulu, who died intestate in the year 1986 leaving behind his four sons namely Longala Pothu Naidu, first petitioner herein, Longala Appadu, Longala Yellaiah and Longala Pydiraju, who used to enjoy the plaint schedule property. In the oral partition, between the brothers, in the year 1994, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of first plaintiff. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of first plaintiff. Plaintiffs stated that the plaint schedule property is their ancestral property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

ii) The plaintiffs further contend that the land in an extent of Ac.0.76 cents was purchased from one Longala Chinnamma and others by the second plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1996. The remaining extent of Ac.1.20 cents of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of first plaintiff in the oral partition.

iii) It is stated that the land in survey No.134 is classified as Assessed Waste Dry. The plaintiffs were paying land revenue to the said land and their names were also incorporated in the revenue records, as such the classification of the said land as assessed waste dry is also illegal and arbitrary. The government never laid objection for possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property since long time, hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

5. The defendants were remained set ex parte and did not choose to contest the suit before the court below.

6. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Defendants.

7. After completion of the trial and on hearing the argument of plaintiffs, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 27.08.2007, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

8. Heard Sri P.Veerraju, learned counsel for appellants and the learned Government Pleader for appeals on behalf of respondents.

9. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that even though the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs amply proves the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, the trial Court dismissed the suit. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge ignored Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents and dismissed the suit and the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and the appeal may be allowed.

10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding give