In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove their own title independently of the defendant's weaknesses. Furthermore, the High Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal unless they are perverse or legally erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09.07.2024 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Pithapuram, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 in O.S.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

2. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, with a prayer for declaration of title of the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and for costs.

3. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

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.214 of 2010, is as follows:

The plaintiffs pleaded that they are the joint owners and possessors of tiled house and site bearing Assessment No.30 situated in Kummarilova Village and the said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and since 50 and 60 years the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property without any obstructions whatsoever. The plaintiffs further pleaded that they are also paying electrical charges in the name of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant’s mother by name Mutyalamma is the sister of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant is in no way concerned with the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant took advantage of the loneliness of the plaintiffs and somehow managed and played fraud and mutated his name in the Panchayat records for some period and the plaintiffs came and reported the fraud played by the defendant to the Panchayat officials, whereby, after due enquiry, the defendant’s name was deleted and thereafter, the tax receipts were issued in the name of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant is never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant without having any title over the schedule property, issued a legal notice dated 09.09.2009 and claimed possession of the plaint schedule property alleging that the plaintiffs are lessees under him. The plaintiffs further pleaded that after receipt of the said notice, they issued a reply notice dated 14.09.2009 and they specifically asserted their title and possession of the plaint schedule property and denied the landlord and tenancy relationship as alleged in the notice of the defendant. Hence, the present suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant pleaded that the suit schedule property originally belonged to him and he got the same through his father and he is enjoying the property for more than 16 years by paying taxes etc., and he got another house in Kummarilova Colony, and at the request made by the plaintiffs, the defendant leased out the same to the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- about four years ago. The defendant further pleaded that he issued a registered legal notice dated 09.09.2009, calling upon the plaintif