The court affirmed that a plaintiff must establish title through evidence, and prior possession alone does not suffice without proof of title.

JUDGMENT :

DR. V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. Plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant, and this appeal is preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugning the judgments of both the Courts below. Pending the appeal she died and her legal representative came on record vide order dated 27.07.2021 in C.M.P.No.13267 of 2001. Respondents herein were the defendants in O.S.No.51 of 1989 and also respondents before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.10 of 1997.

2. On 23.11.2001 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the Courts below could have ignored that even in the ordinary proprietary action a plaintiff need do nothing more than prove that she had an older possession through her father than that of the respondents/defendants and the law will presume from the prior possession a better title?

2. Whether the Courts below were in error in ignoring that previous possession of the father of the appellant/plaintiff is prima facie evidence of title against a wrong doer and entitle the appellant/plaintiff to succeed on proof of peaceable possession derived under Ex.A.1, unless the respondents/defendants could show a better title?

3. Whether the Courts below could have ignored the principle that evidence of possession by the father of the appellant/plaintiff and enjoyment of itself is cogent evidence of title?

4. Whether the Courts below were in error in ignoring that in the absence of clear title in the respondents/defendants, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to succeed on the basis of her father's possession until the contrary is shown by the respondents/defendants?

5. Whether the Courts below ought not to have ignored that evidence of possession of certain specific property as shown under Ex.A.1 and Exs.A.2 to A.4 and Exs.A.7 to A.17, can be treated as evidence of possession as regard the appendage i.e., the two room tiled house of the appellant/plaintiff?

3. Sri T.S.Rayalu, the learned counsel for appellant submitted arguments. For respondents, appearance was made but thereafter none appeared to argue despite granting several adjournments.

4. For appreciating the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal and the submissions of the learned counsel, a few facts are to be noticed:

Property in dispute is situated in Raparthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal of East Godavari District. This property runs from north to south. There was one Sri Kambham Ramamurthy Reddy. He owns landed properties and house properties. The present controversy pertains to house properties. He had executed Ex.A.1-Will dated 24.07.1971. In the same year he died and therefore, that Will had come into operation. Claiming under the said Will two legatees filed two separate suits. Sri Kambham Rampratap Reddy @ Rampratap filed O.S.No.41 of 1989 seeking permanent injunction as against four defendants. Whereas Smt. Gudla Mahalakshmamma filed O.S.No.51 of 1989 for declaration of title with a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to her and for future profits and for costs and such other reliefs. The said suit was filed against four defendants. In both the suits the defendants are the same. Both the suits were laid before learned District Munsif, Pithapuram. Common evidence was recorded. For plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 6 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked. For defendants, DWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked.

5. Before the trial Court, the following issues were settled:

Issues in O.S.No.41 of 1989:

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

2. To what relief?

Issues in O.S.No.51 of 1989:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of the vacant possession as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for profits as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. Considering the evidence on both sides and argu