In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and mere possession does not confer ownership.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 30-7-2012 in A.S.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, in setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 19-01-2012 in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 to 11 are defendants 1 to 11 in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal. Respondents 12 to 14 herein are added as legal representatives of deceased 5^th respondent vide order dated 26-6-2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal, with a prayer for declaration of plaintiffs’ title in respect of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, legal heirs, assignees, representatives etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, decreed the suit with costs by declaring the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property as owners of the plaint schedule property and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, legal heirs, assignees, representatives etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the plaint schedule properties. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, allowed the first appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

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

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.69 of 2008, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule properties from one K. David and others under a registered sale deed dated 24-7-1987 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and the Government also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also availed crop loan from Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, Gadivemula Branch, by executing a registered mortgage deed in favour of the bank on 28-11-2007 and the plaintiffs are paying cist to the Government authorities for the plaint schedule lands.

(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs filed a caveat petition on 11-02-2008 before Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal and having received the said caveat petition, the defendants gave reply on 04-3-2008 stating that the plaintiffs are the tenants of plaint schedule properties and the defendants are aware that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

(c) It is further pleaded that in temporary absence of the plaintiffs, the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule properties and due to intervention of the elders, the matter was pacified and as the defendants are proclaiming that they will interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit.

7. The defendants 1, 2 and 6 filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 3 to 5, denying the contents of plaint averments and they