In a title declaration suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish ownership, and appellate courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless findings are legally flawed.

Judgment :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 19-01-2011 in A.S.No.75 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-9-2005 in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

2. The 1^st appellant herein is the deceased sole defendant, appellants 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of deceased 1^st appellant/defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs 1 to 4 in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, with a prayer for the relief of declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his followers from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and consequential injunction without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, legal representatives of the unsuccessful deceased sole defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 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.1 of 1999, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the 1^st plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property with specific boundaries from the deceased sole defendant through a registered sale deed dated 12-6-1962 and the defendant had retained some land on the south and east of the said property purchased by the plaintiffs. The 1^st plaintiff had been in actual possession of Ac.0-13½ cents though as per sale deed he purchased Ac.0-11 cents and that the plaintiffs perfected their title over the suit property by adverse possession. The defendant was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he was trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration and for consequential injunction.

7. The sole defendant filed written statement and additional written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:

It is contended that the deceased 1^st plaintiff purchased only Ac.0-11 cents through registered sale deed from him and the land shown as ABCD in the plan filed by him is part and parcel of the suit survey number. A part of the land shown as ABG is also retained by him on the north and he sold away Ac.0-11 cents in favour of the plaintiff. The said Ac.0-11 cents is shown as BCDG in the plan filed by him. The boundaries have been given in the sale deed dated 12-6-1962 under which the plaintiff purchased the property with an idea of identifying the property purchased by him. The plaintiff raised foundation up to the ground level on the west of the land. The encroachment made into ABG by means of digging pits with a width of three feet by the plaintiff. The defendant raised objection as to the said encroachment. The disputed site of Ac.0-02½ cents prop