In disputes involving conflicting title claims, a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent declaration of title, reaffirmed by the necessity of evidencing lawful possession.

JUDGMENT :

V. 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 22.02.2019 in A.S.No.63 of 2015, on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 04.06.2012 in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant, the respondents 1 to 5 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

3. The 1^st plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in plaint schedule land and for costs of the suit.

During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.63 of 2015, on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur, dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant in the suit 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 plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.204 of 2000, is as follows:

(a) The 1^st plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule land from one Karampudi Krishnamacharyulu, son of Garudacharyulu of Ayyavaripalli village, hamlet of Pedda Kandukur, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, at present Ravvaram Village of Nujerlla Mandal, Guntur District, under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1999 for consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The plaint schedule property was the ancestral property of 1^st plaintiff’s vendor. On th same day of registration, the 1^st plaintiff was given possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land by his vendor. Ever since, the 1^st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land without any interruption.

(b) Subsequently, the 1^st plaintiff got pattadar passbook and title deed book from the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Ardhaveedu Mandal. Neither the defendant nor anybody else is having any right, title, possession or enjoyment in the plaint schedule land except the plaintiff. At the time of purchase, the defendant also wanted to purchase the land from the vendor of the plaintiff. But the 1^st plaintiff’s vendor sold the plaint schedule land to the 1^st plaintiff, as the 1^st plaintiff offered more price than the defendant. As such, the defendant developed grudge against the 1^st plaintiff.

(c) The defendant since 01.08.2000 is proclaiming in the village that he would disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in plaint schedule land. Hence the 1^st plaintiff filed the suit.

(d) During pendency of the suit, the 1^st plaintiff died leaving the plaintiffs 2 to 5 as his legal representatives, as such, the