In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2022 in A.S.No.28 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2019 in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, with a prayer for declaration to declare that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; restraining the defendants and their men and their henchmen and their successors in interest from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of the permanent injunction as a consequential relief; and, alternatively for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, in case, if on any reason, if the relief of injunction is not granted to the plaintiff.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, allowed the suit in part. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.28 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram. The learned II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.134 of 2013, is as follows:

(i) The plaint schedule property concerned under S.Nos.54/15 to 21 and 53/13 and 9 to an extent of Ac.3-90 cents situated in Rangarayapuram Revenue area originally belonged to Inuganti people and it was purchased by the 1^st defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 10.05.2005. subsequently, she was in need of money to discharge her sundry debts and to meet her family necessities, she sold the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff for Rs.6,63,000/- under a registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 and put the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the said property. She discharged the earlier registered mortgage debt with the part of sale consideration under registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010. The 1^st defendant handed over the original link document, dated 10.05.2005 and the Photostat copy of receipt, dated 16.08.2010 to show the discharge of registered mortgage debt on the plaint schedule property at the time of execution. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights raising wet and dry crops with the assistance of his father-in-law. Subsequently, in the year 2011, the plaintiff shifted his residence to Vizianagaram and personally done the cultivation operations on the suit schedule land. Recently, the value of the land increased and the plaintiff wants to sell away the plaint schedule property to the third party in order to improve his other assets, he filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bobbili for mutation of his name in the revenue records under the provisions of Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act. When the Tahsildar, Bobbili conducted enquiry, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 made a false claim and cast a colour over the title and possession of the plaintiff to the pla