IMPORTANT POINT
Possession follows title; defendants failed to prove adverse possession, affirming plaintiff's title and granting injunction.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondents are the defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff died. Her legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos. 2 to 6 by an order dated 25.04.2023 in I.A. No.3 of 2023. Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 died and respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who are already on record, were shown as her legal representatives. Respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6/defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 also died. Their legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos. 7 to 10, 11 to 13 and 14 and 15 respectively by an order dated 09.07.2013 in S.A.M.P. No.1908 of 2008.

2. On 20.10.2000 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the non-reading of the documents Exs.B.3 to B.6 and the plaint schedule by the appellate Court which disclose that Exs.B.3 to B.6 do not relate to the suit schedule property is a grave error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice?

2. Whether under law, Exs.B.1 and B.2 are inadmissible evidence for the non-examination of the alleged photographer?

3. Whether Exs.B.3 to B.5 certificates are inadmissible in evidence without examining the MRO concerned?

4. Whether the appellate Court committed a grave error of law in not presuming that possession follows title?

5. Whether under law, the appellate Court ought to have granted the relief of possession though not specifically prayed for, by collecting the court fee when the defendants are unlawful land-grabbers?

6. Whether under law, the permission granted by the appellate Court to file a fresh suit for possession in spite of the bar under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. instead of ordering delivery of possession against the land- grabbers is improper under law?

3. Sri Srinivas Emani, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel for respondents submitted arguments.

4. To appreciate the contentions that have come up in this appeal, the following aspects are to be noticed:

An extent of 52 2/9 square yards of site in T.S. No.1018 in block No. 30 of Maharanipeta in Upper Relli Veedhi within Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limits is the property in dispute and is referred in detail in the plaint schedule. This property originally belonged to Sri Inti Ramaswamy. By executing Ex.A.3-registered gift deed dated 02.07.1949 he donated the property. The donees thereafter having acquired possession and title over the said property enjoyed the same for several decades and thereafter they executed Ex.A.1-registered gift deed dated 13.11.1985 in favour of Smt. Chenna Bhooloka. She took delivery of possession of the property under Ex.A.1. The said Smt. Chenna Bhooloka laid O.S. No.1436 of 1985 before learned III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. Paragraph No.VI contains the prayer in the plaint. The same is extracted here:

"The plaintiff, therefore, prays the Honourable Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants:

a) declaring the plaintiff's title to and possession of the suit property;

b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and supporters from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff possession and enjoyment of the suit property or from raising any structures or constructions etc., thereon;

c) granting costs of the suit to the plaintiff; and

d) granting such other and further reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

5. In the plaint she asserted her title and possession over her property and stated that originally there was a shed in the property and in the said locality there was outbreak of fire and several thatched sheds in that locality as well as the shed in the plaint schedule property were gutted in the fire. Since 04.12.1985 the defendants have been attempting to encroach into this property and cause loss to her. It is in