The defendant's better title to the suit property, based on the Land Tribunal's order, influenced the court's decision to deny perpetual injunction to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in O.S. No.506/2005 challenging the concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts that the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The deceased plaintiff claimed that the suit property was owned and possessed by his mother Smt.Rudramma, who had purchased it on 31/7/1961. She died on 29/12/2003 and hence, the deceased plaintiff succeeded to the said property and got his name transferred in the revenue records. The plaintiff alleged that his mother had borrowed loan from the Primary Land Development Bank, Anekal by mortgaging the suit property and had deposited original documents of title with the Bank. However, the Bank had misplaced the original deeds. The plaintiff alleged that defendants No.2 and 4 had colluded with Narayan Reddy and created documents in respect of the suit property and were attempting to alienate the same which prompted the plaintiff to issue notice to defendants No.2 and 4 and Narayanareddy. The plaintiff, therefore, sought for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff expired and his legal heirs came on record.

4. The defendants No.1 to 5 contested the suit by filing their written statement and claimed that the defendant No.1 was a tenant cultivating the suit property under the mother of deceased plaintiff and that he had filed an application in Form No.7 claiming grant of occupancy rights. They claimed that the Land Tribunal had passed an order granting occupancy right in respect of suit property and other properties and had issued Hakku Patra in favour of defendant No.1. The defendants alleged that from the date of grant, the defendant No.1 and his family members were in possession of the suit property which was evidenced by the name of defendant No.1 in column No.12(2) of the RTC extract, though the name of Rudramma continued to appear in column No.9 of RTC extract. The defendants claimed that they were paying the land revenue in respect of the suit property and were personally cultivating the same. The defendant No.1 filed an application on 26/9/2005 for change of revenue records to his name and that the plaintiffs in order to subvert the claim of defendant No.1 had filed this suit.

5. The defendants No.6 and 7 adopted the written statement filed by defendants No.1 to 5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants No.1 and 5 expired and the legal representatives of defendant No.2 were brought on record.

6. The legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 filed their written statement denying the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of suit property. They claimed that the defendant No.1, Gubbanna had purchased the suit property on 1/1/1948 and later sold it to Rudramma on 31/7/1961. They alleged that even after Gubbanna and his family members sold the suit property to Rudramma, he and his family members were cultivating the suit property and other land in Muthagatti village as tenants. The said Gubbanna approached Land Tribunal for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of suit property and other properties and the Land Tribunal had granted the same. He, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff had no subsisting right in respect of the suit property.

7. With these rival contentions, the case was set down for trial and the parties were examined. The Trial Court held that a perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Ex.D-33 disclosed that the suit property was granted to defendant No.1. The revenue documents stood testimony to the fact that the defendants were in possession pursuant to acceptance of mutation in MR 2/82-83 to enter the name of defendant No.1. Thus, it held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, even though the revenue records