IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff must establish title to obtain consequential relief of injunction; mere possession is insufficient if title is denied.

JUDGMENT :

(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.)

Legal representatives of the original plaintiff have preferred this Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Legal representatives of the original defendant are the respondents herein.

2. Sri Mohammad Sharif instituted O.S.No.59 of 1988 as against Sri Mohammad Osman with a prayer for declaration of title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from trespassing into any portion of the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. The claim of title was made stating that property originally belonged to the ancestors of the plaintiff and it all came by succession.

3. Defendant filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the property belonged to the Mosque and the plaintiff having joined as a tenant in a small portion of a space for running a hotel has come up with all false pleas and sought dismissal of the suit.

4. Learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff has got title over the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A39 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked. The advocate commissioner-PW5 marked Exs.C1 and C2.

6. After an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, learned District Munsif, Banaganapalle by a judgment dated 19.01.1993 found that plaintiff has no title over the property and his possession over the property is unlawful and accordingly it refused to grant all the reliefs and dismissed the suit with costs.

7. Aggrieved by it, the sole plaintiff preferred A.S.No.5 of 1993 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal representatives came on record as appellant Nos.1 to 5. The sole defendant also died and his legal representatives came on record as respondent Nos.1 to 4.

8. On hearing the submissions on both sides, learned first appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs proved their title by satisfactory evidence?

2. Whether the plaintiffs perfected their title by way of adverse possession?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction?

4. Whether the decree and judgment of the lower court suffers from any irregularity on facts or law?

5. Whether the documents which were sought to be tendered by the plaintiffs by way of additional evidence can be received?

9. After considering the material on record, by a judgment dated 24.04.2007 the learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court judgment. At paragraph No.26 the learned first appellate Court recorded that on evidence it was found that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It also observed that despite orders of status quo the appellants built a pucca building in the suit site (it may be mentioned that in the original suit the plaint schedule mentions existence of a hut). Holding that the possession held by the plaintiff is unlawful, it refused to grant even the relief of permanent injunction.

10. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs. During the pendency of this appeal respondent No.4 died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.5 to 7.

11. On 02.08.2007 this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Can the trial Court and the first appellate Court dismiss an action for injunction, even in case the possession is admitted by the defendant and same having been taken judicial notice by both the Courts, with resultant findings to that effect, for failing to establish case as far as the relief of declaration of ti