IMPORTANT POINT
When there is dispute of localization or demarcation of property, best course of action is to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner / Surveyor for localization.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.—These two Appeals arise between the same parties out of the same suit, and therefore, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The appellants in both these Appeals are plaintiffs in O.S.No.497 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. The plea of the appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint

3. The appellants filed the above suit against the respondents for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property and for decree to be passed in their favour for recovery of possession if the respondents are found to be in possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0.9 gts. in Survey No.85/1 of Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. According to the appellants, Late P. Vishnuvardhan Rao, husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, purchased the said property under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.7108/97 dt.13.10.1997 (Ex.P.2) from the original owner S. Jangaiah and others who were the pattadars of the land. They contended that the said Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Rao died on 25.12.2010, and they inherited the property on his death.

6. According to them, the property was agricultural land at the time of its acquisition and its boundaries in 1997 were : North : Land in Survey No.85/2 of Agamaiah; South : Land in Survey No.86 of Rukmaiah; East – Land of Shivkumar; and West : Neighbouring land.

7. They also contended that mutation of the said land was made under Ex.P.3 dt.30.10.1998 in proceedings No.E/3907/98 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar and that P. Vishnuvardhan Rao was issued Ex.P.4-Pattadar Pass Book and Ex.P.5-Title Deed. They contended that from 1998-99 onwards till 2006-07 in the Pahani Patriks, the land stood in the name of Sri Jangaiah as owner, and subsequently P. Vishnuvardhan Rao ‘s name was incorporated therein.

8. According to them, the respondents did not claim any right in respect of land in Survey No.85/1, but they are claiming title to land in an alleged layout developed by M/s.Janmabhoomi Homes Pvt. Ltd. in Survey No.85/2 and other Sy. No. of Manikonda Jagir Village; that the 5th respondent is said to be the vendor of respondent nos.1 to 4; and taking advantage of the fact that P. Vishnuvardhan Rao had not taken up construction on the suit schedule property, the respondents had started interfering with the same. According to them, P. Vishnuvardhan Rao filed O.S.No.377 of 2008 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for perpetual injunction, but the said suit was dismissed on 28.11.2016.

9. Appellants contend that there was considerable development in respect of the lands, and the boundaries which are available in 2008 would not be available in 2016 when O.S.No.377 of 2008 came up for leading evidence, and the said Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, without getting the properties surveyed, dismissed the suit.

10. It is contended that taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit and the Pongal Vacation to the Courts in the months of January, 2017, the respondents encroached upon the suit schedule property on 09.01.2017, and dispossessed the appellants and therefore, they filed the instant suit.

The Written Statement filed by 4th respondent

11. Written Statement was filed by the 4th respondent opposing the suit claim. The respondent Nos. 1,2 and 5 adopted the same.

12. It is contended that O.S. No. 377 of 2008 was filed by P. Vishnuvardhan Rao, predecessor in title of the appellants, with an intention to grab the plots of the respondents under the Sale Deed Ex. P.2, but in the said suit he failed to show how two side roads came to the suit schedule property without any development of the suit schedule property, and the suit was dismissed on 28.11.2016.

13. They denied that in January, 2017 they encroached and trespassed into the suit sc