The suit for injunction is not maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud, requiring a declaration of title for proper adjudication.

COMMON 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 22.12.2017 in A.S.No.71 of 2011, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati (“First Appellate Court” for short) confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 11.02.2011 in O.S.No.345 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents 1 to 18 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.345 of 2006.

During the pendency of first appeal, respondents 6, 16 and 3 are died and their legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 19 to 21; 22 to 25 and 26 to 30 respectively.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.345 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, with a prayer for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, etc., from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' to 'R' schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.71 of 2011, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.Aggrieved thereby, the defendant 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.345 of 2006, is as follows:

The schedule mentioned properties are the vacant sites and originally belonged to one Adimulam Rajagopal which is his ancestral property and he was cultivating the same by raising crops and the said Rajagopal and his son A. Srinivasulu have jointly sold away the suit properties to one Chakkilala Narasimhaiah under a registered sale deed, dated 22.01.1941. Since then, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The said Narasimhaiah sold away the suit properties in favour of A. Srinivasulu under a registered sale deed, dated 16.09.1950. Since then, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties without any interruption and the said Srinivasulu sold away the suit properties in favour of D. Subramanyam under a registered sale deed, dated 05.12.1960. Since then, the said Subramanyam had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after the death of Subramanyam, his legal representatives i.e., wife Sarojamma and his sons have been enjoyment of the same and they have sold away the suit property in favour of K. Parthasarathy under a registered sale deed, dated 02.05.1983 and since then the said Parthasarathy had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and later, the said land was converted into house sites and sold the same to various persons including the plaintiffs herein under different registered sale deeds in different dates by specific metes and bounds and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said house plots and the plaintiffs have constructed a common compound wall with cement bricks covering the entire suit schedule property to avoid encroachment. Except the plaintiffs, nobody has any right and interest over the suit schedule property and on 12.07.2006 at 11 a.m., the defendant, who is a p