Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.

-

.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. 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 17.10.2017 in A.S.No.4 of 2016, on the file of learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 17.11.2015 in O.S. No.54 of 2010, on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.54 of 2010, on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem.

During the pendency of the first appeal, the 1^st respondent died.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.54 of 2010, on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem, with a prayer for declaration of title, consequential possession of plaint "A" schedule property or alternatively for partition of "B" schedule property, possession, mesne profits and for costs of the suit.

-

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.54 of 2010, on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.4 of 2016, on the file of learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur. The learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs 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.54 of 2010, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the brothers and sons of one late Chandram. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of one late Kondireddy Bhaskara Rao, son of Swami. The maternal uncle of the plaintiffs by name Kondireddy Bhaskara Rao, son of Swamy, purchased an extent of Ac.9.50 cents in R.S.No.14/1 and 14/2 under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1958 from one Mullapudi Muniah etc., which is shown as Ac.9.60 cents as per revenue records. Said Kondireddy Bhaskara Rao sold an extent of Ac.2.00 cents of cultivable land and 1/3^rd joint right which is an extent of Ac.1.16 cents in the tank portion, in total an extent of Ac.3.16 cents was sold to father of plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 02.08.1961. Ever since the date of purchase, the father of the plaintiffs and his vendor Bhaskara Rao enjoyed the land with joint tank. The plaintiffs' father died long back and the plaintiffs have been enjoying the same.

(b) During the lifetime of Kondireddy Bhaskara Rao, his sons partitioned their properties. During the partition, the lands in R.S.No.14/1 and 14/2 were fell to the shares of defendants 1 and 2 respectively. Subsequently, the 1^st defendant sold an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land in R.S.No.14/1 to the 4^th defendant to the south of the tank portion under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.1994. On 28.09.1994, the 1^st defendant sold an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.14/1 to the 3^rd defendant. The plaintiffs filed a plan showing the existing physical features on land along with the plaint.

-

(c) The defendants 1 to 4 colluded together, highhandedly and illegally took possession of Ac.1.02 cents of land which was covered as tank portion from the plaintiffs in May, 2009. Since then, the defendants 1 to 4 occupied the plaint "A" schedule shown as A, B, C of plaint plan property and continued in possession of the same. Ever since, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for possession of the plaint "A" schedule property, but they postponed the same. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants through village elders also, but in vain. Since one month, the defendants are proclaiming that the plaintiffs had no right in the plaint "A" schedule property and no registered partition was took place