In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to substantiate ownership with clear evidence; mere possession is inadequate for claims. Title must be proven, not presumed.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Krishnavamsi, learned counsel, representing Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent.

2. No representation for the 2nd respondent.

3. This Appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 2004 being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The suit was filed against the defendants/respondents 1 and 2 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties i.e., an extent of 7.60 cents in Sy.No.248; extent of Ac.0.92 cents; and extent of Ac.5.15 cents in Sy.No.691 of Aamuru village, Rudravaram Mandal and an extent of Ac.4.57 cents in Sy.No.316 of Narasapuram village, Rudravaram Mandal.

I. Facts:

i) Plaintiffs’ case:

4. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit with the averments that they are the brothers, living jointly and their father became mentally unsound about 12 years back and disappeared and his whereabouts were not known. So, he was presumed to be dead. The grandfather of the plaintiffs was one Matam Seshaiah and his father (the grandfather of the plaintiffs) was one Matam Ayyanna. His father was Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. So, the case set up was that the family name of the plaintiffs was ‘Matam’ and their ancestor was Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. The plaint schedule property was said to be the family properties of the plaintiffs being their ancestral property. They pleaded to be in possession and enjoyment of the same absolutely and independently and also paying cists till it was abolished. The plaintiffs after they grew up and after the death of their father, developed the land and had been cultivating by employing the modern tools, irrigating the land with bore- well water. Item-1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties constituted one field, in which the plaintiffs’ father dug one bore-well during his lifetime. The plaintiffs also dug two more bore-wells in the said land. In item No.3, the plaintiffs dug two more bore-wells and in all the three items, the plaintiffs were doing intensive cultivation and raising two crops in a year. In item No.4 there was no bore-well and only dried crops were raised. The 1^st plaintiff, in addition, was also carrying a Xerox Centre in Cuddapah and the 2nd plaintiff was then doing MCA course at Tirupati, and their cousin brother, namely, K. Munnaiah was said to be helping the plaintiffs and supervising the cultivation. They also raised crops by pledging the original documents with Syndicate Bank, Alamur. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram issued pattadar passbooks. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram issued title deeds for the plaint schedule land in favour of the plaintiffs and those title deeds were pledged with the Syndicate Bank, Alamur for raising crop loan.

5. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the original pattadar passbooks were taken by the Revenue Inspector Mallikarjun at the instance of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram on 30.08.2004 and receipt with the seal of the Mandal Revenue Officer for taking possession of two pattadar passbooks for item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property was issued which was filed with the plaint. The circumstances under which the Revenue Inspector seized those pattadar passbooks were published in Andhra Jyothi, Daily Supplement news paper dated 04.09.2004. Some of the cist receipts available with the plaintiffs for payment of cists