IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Only when title is clear, Court can decide question of de jure possession.
(2) Question of title can be decided only by filing a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and not a suit for injunction simpliciter.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant – respondent – defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2002 passed in A.S.No.48 of 1997 by the III Additional District Judge, Warangal District reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.06.1997 passed in O.S.No.206 of 1990 by the Principal District Munsif, Warangal.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the absolute owner and possessor of plot Nos.16 and 17 in Survey No.147 admeasuring 520 square yards situated at erstwhile Somidi Village, presently being called as Venkatadri Nagar, Kazipet. He purchased the suit land in the year 1969 through a sada sale deed dated 28.04.1969 from the joint owners Mohd. Tajuddin Sahib and Sri V. Suryanarayana Rao for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- paid by the plaintiff in two installments of Rs.3,000/- on 30.03.1969 and balance amount of Rs.2,000 on 20.04.1969. Since the date of purchase, he was in exclusive possession of the suit land without any interference from any quarter. He was managing the suit land and was taking steps for constructing a house over the suit land off late. After purchase of suit land, as he was not having sufficient means, he did not proceed with the construction of the house. For the said reason, the suit land was kept vacant. In the surrounding plots owned by different persons, some of them had constructed houses. The plaintiff was working as a teacher at Mahabubabad. But his family was set up at Mahendra Nagar, Kazipet. The plaintiff often used to come to Kazipet from Mahabubabad to look after the suit land. The defendant, who did not have any interest or right over the suit land taking advantage that the plaintiff was working away at Mahabubabad laid his evil eye over the suit land and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. On 26.02.1990, while the plaintiff was trying to dig trenches to proceed with the construction, the defendant came to the spot and tried to interfere. The plaintiff resisted the attempts made by the defendant. On the intervention of the surrounding people, the defendant left the place, but threatened the plaintiff that he would see that the plaintiff was evicted from the suit land by use of brutal force. As the plaintiff was working elsewhere, he was apprehending that he might not be in a position to safe-guard his interest over the suit land continuously in future, as such preferred the suit.

5. The defendant filed written statement contending that the suit land belonged to him and it was in his exclusive possession. Mohd. Tajuddin Sahib and Sri V.Suryanarayana Rao were not the owners of the said plot to convey any title. The said persons were completely strangers. They had no right or interest in the suit plot. The plaintiff was not in possession at any point of time and the alleged possession was far from truth. On the strength of an ex-parte injunction, the plaintiff was trying to make construction in the suit land, which was stopped by the defendant. Infact, it was the plaintiff, who was interfering with his possession.

5.1. He further submitted that he purchased the suit land from its real owner Sri Khaja Shakeer Hussain on 02.02.1965. Since then, he and his father were in peaceful possession. The defendant obtained permission for construction of house from the Gram Panchayat, Somidi. But due to unfortunate death of defendant’s father, the construction could not be proceeded with. The suit plot was situated in the compound of the defendant’s owner adjacent to his residential house. The relief of injunction simpliciter was not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction?

ii) To what relief.

7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1