A claim of adverse possession requires proper pleading of duration and nature of possession; mere long possession does not confer title.

JUDGMENT :

B. SYAMSUNDER, J.

1. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 159 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif, Kota of Nellore District are the appellants. The 2nd appellant died, and then the appellant Nos. 4 to 8 brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-2nd appellant. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff against the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 for declaration of her title over plaint schedule property, and also for possession of the same from the appellants/defendants.

2. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3, 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent and the 1st respondent hereinafter referred to as defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for declaration of her title over plaint schedule property, and also for possession. The plaint schedule property as shown in the plaint, which reads as under:

SCHEDULE

Nellore District Registration - Kota - Sub-Registration house site of 30 ankanams with 3 ankanams, thatched house in Chendodu village, Kota mandal, Nellore District within the following boundaries:

East: Garden land of Vasudevarao

West: House of Malli Sundaraiah

South: Lane leading to plaintiff’s house to some extent and house of Alla Bhakshu

North: Garden land of Ogilli Seetharamaiah.

Market value Rs. 1,250/-.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property occupied by her long back, which is a Gramakantam site. The plaintiff submits that prior to that her father was in occupation of the same, and in the year 1979 she constructed 3 ankanams of thatched house in that site, and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff submits that in the year 1981, the sons of the 2nd defendant, and brothers of 1st and 2nd defendants by name Mr.Dhananjaya Reddy and Mr.Narayana Reddy with active support of the then Revenue Minister tried to occupy the plaint schedule property accompanied by the Taluk Surveyor, and then she filed suit before the District Munsif Court, Gudur in OS No. 107 of 1981 to protect her possession, which was decreed on 02.11.1981 restraining the defendants therein and the Government to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that when herself and her family members along with her father went to her relatives house in the first week of January, 1988, in her absence, the defendants with the active support of Mr.Konduru Narayana Reddy and Mr. Dananjaya Reddy entered into the plaint schedule site and thrown-out her articles in front of her father’s house, which the plaintiff questioned the defendants about their high-handed behaviour, but the defendants gave an adamant reply and refused to vacate the house taking advantage of her helpless condition, due to that she got issued legal notice, dated 11.06.1988, who gave reply with false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her title and for recovery of possession from the defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The 3rd defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff, which also adopted by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is the contention of the 3rd defendant that they are not aware of the previous suit filed by the plaintiff against Mr.Dananjaya Reddy and Mr. Narayana Reddy. She also submits that the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of house site since long time, due to that on 25.04.1981 the Government granted patta for the site to an extent of Ac. 0.6 1/3 cents equivalent to 38 ankanams, which house plot is described as plot No. 16B and Block No. 155 under patta bearing No. RCA 5/245/75, and thereafter the 2nd defendant constructed a thatched house, wherein all her family members living, but due to misunderstandings between the family of the plaintiff and her family, the plaintiff filed the suit with malafide intention to grab the property