In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their right to the property, which they failed to do.

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 27.06.2017 in A.S.No.3 of 2012, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2012 in O.S.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

2. The appellant herein is defendant and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from encroaching and causing any obstruction in the plaint schedule rasta shown as ABIGH portion in the plaint plan and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.3 of 2012, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs. 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.28 of 2009, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is part of Ac.3-30 cents in S.No.759/4 of Rayachoty village and the land in S.No.759/2 is an extent of Ac.2-10 cents originally belongs to one Pyarijan out of which she gifted Ac.0-86 cents in S.No.759/4 and Ac.0-14 cents in S.No.759/2 to the defendant under a registered gift deed, dated 19.08.1975. The said Ac.1-00 cents is bounded on east by Kadapa-Chittoor trunk road, on the north by the land retained by the donor Pyarijan, on the west by the land Shaik Yusuf and on the south the land retained by the Pyarijan which is shown as ABCD in the plaint plan. The defendant prepared a layout over the said extent of Ac.1-00 cents by leaving Ac.0-4 ¾ cents for streets and sold the remaining Ac.0-95 ¼ cents for house sites to different people, different extents and different points of time. One such sale over the extent of Ac.0-6 ½ cents shown ABIEF in the plaint plan to one Abdul Kareem under a registered sale deed, dated 21.02.1980 vide document No.851/1989. In the said sale this suit property is shown as property of Pyarijan his donor. After demise of Shaik Abdul Kareem, his legal heirs sold the said extent to Shaik Khader Mohiddin under a registered sale deed, dated 29.08.1996 vide document No.2466/1996. In the said sale deed also the plaint schedule property is shown as a property of Pyarijan. Pyarijan retained the land on the south of ABCD portion of the land, prepared a layout for house sites leaving some extent for streets. One such street left out is shown ABIGH with a width of 12 feet and length of 60 feet connecting Kadapa-Chittoor road to a street on the west of ABIGH street as shown in plaint plan.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the material averments and contended as follows:

The plaint schedule property is a part of Ac.3-30 cents in S.No.759/4 of Rayachoty village, which originally belonged to one Pyarijan. The defendant denied that the defendant prepared a layout over the said Ac.1-00 cents by leaving Ac.0-4 ¾ cents for streets and sold remaining extent and also said Pyarijan retained the land on south of ABCD portion of land, prepared a layout for house sites leaving some extent for streets and one such street left out is shown as ABIGH with a width of 12 feet and length of 60 feet connecting Kadapa-Chittoor road to a street on the west of ABIGH street as shown in plaint plan. The plaint plan is i