Possession of property by a plaintiff, even without established title, can warrant a decree of permanent injunction against a defendant claiming conflicting title.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellant and respondent in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiff and defendant before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 and respondent and appellant respectively before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2011.

3. The suit of the plaintiff(appellant in this 2^nd appeal) vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 against the defendant(respondent in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The properties described in the schedule of the plaint are the suit properties.

As per the case of the plaintiff, while, he(plaintiff) was minor in the year 1966, the suit properties were purchased jointly by the minor plaintiff represented though this father guardian and one Ratnalu Arjun of Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh through registered Sale Deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966. Since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966, he(plaintiff) was possessing the suit properties exclusively through his father guardian, as his co-purchaser, Ratnalu Arjun was a resident of distant place, i.e., Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh and he was residing there.

He(plaintiff) and his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun applied for mutation of the suit properties to their names by filing Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 and the said Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 was allowed on dated 25.06.1967 by the Tahasildar, Rayagada in favour of the plaintiff and his co-purchaser Ratnalu Arjun, but, as the plaintiff was minor by then, for which, RoR of the suit properties, was prepared by the Tahasil authorities in the name of his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun, which was unknown to the minor plaintiff. When one Himirika Rupa created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties, for which, he(plaintiff) filed a suit for injunction against Himirika Rupa in respect of the suit properties. That suit vide T.S. No.51 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Rayagada and Himirika Rupa was injuncted permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties.

Since the date of attaining majority in the year 1971 till yet, he(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties independently without any guardianship. When, the co-purchaser of the plaintiff, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun was incapable to possess the suit properties, then, he(Ratnalu Arjun) requested plaintiff to purchase his half share in the suit properties from him, to which, the plaintiff agreed and the consideration amount thereof was fixed as Rs.6,500/-. The plaintiff paid the said consideration amount to Ratnalu Arjun in two installments and he(plaintiff) became the exclusive owner of the suit properties, but, unfortunately before execution and registration of sale deed in respect of the share of Ratnalu Arjun in favour of the plaintiff, the said Ratnalu Arjun died. Soon after the death of Ratnalu Arjun, his wife also died. Ratnalu Arjun and his wife died without issue. He(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties exclusively since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966 continuously till yet. As, Ratnalu Arjun and his wife had no issue, therefore, after the death of Ratnalu Arjun and his wife, their interest in the suit properties had extinguished and as per law, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit properties. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties was confirmed through the decree pa