JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 23.06.2016 in A.S.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy, wherein and whereunder, the said appeal was allowed, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy in O.S.No.15 of 2008.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is, briefly, stated as under :

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for perpetual Injunction restraining them from causing interference into her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e. Plot No.61 in Sy.No.168/Part, admeasuring 500 square yards respectively, situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule property”).

4. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was purchased by her from its original owner by name Gopularam Chinnna Lachaiah through his G.P.A. holder G.Jitender Reddy on 06.06.1987 under registered sale deed vide doc.No.4692/1987. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. During the third week of January, 2009, when the plaintiff started digging trenches by engaging labour to construct a compound wall to the suit schedule property, the defendants, without having any manner of right, tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. Hence, the present suit.

5. The defendants filed written statement inter alia contending that Sy.No.168 consists of large extent of land and there are so many share holders in it. Originally, the grandfather of the defendants by name Chakali Pedda Veeraiah was the owner, pattedar and possessor of the land in Sy.No.168. After his death, the land was partitioned in between the family members including the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4. In the said partition, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4 by name Lachaiah got an extent of Ac.1-15 guntas in Sy.No.168, which was denoted as Sy.No.168/E1 and he was in possession and enjoyment till his death. After his death, having inherited, the defendants are in possession of Ac.1-15 guntas and the said land was mutated in the name of defendant No.4 in the revenue records and she was issued pattadar passbook and title deed.

6. It is also stated that father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4 never appointed any person as G.P.A holder in respect of land fell to his share and he was personally cultivating the same till his death. There are no plots existing in Sy.No.168/E1 as alleged by the plaintiff, since it is an agricultural land and under cultivation of the defendants. The alleged G.P.A. is created for the purpose of this case by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in collusion with the enemies of the defendants filed false suit with wrong boundaries. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, basing on the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

“i) Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for?

iii) To what relief?

The following Additional issue was also framed:

1. Whether the suit schedule plot cannot be identified on the ground, as contended by defendant in his additional written statement?

8. To substantiate their respective cases, the plaintiff, besides examining herself as PW.1, also examined PWs.2, 4 and 5 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A.18. Mainly, Ex.A.1 is original sale deed dated 06.06.1987, Ex.A.2 is certified copy of GPA document, Exs.A.3 to A-7 are