IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff must establish title and possession over the suit land to claim relief. Failure to challenge proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachments Act may weaken the claim of possession.

JUDGMENT

1. Assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 17/9/1992 passed by the court of the Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar in O.S.No.91 of 1987, in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, the present appeal is filed.

2. During the pendency of appeal, the original plaintiff, who is the appellant in this appeal died, and vide order dtd. 25/10/2020 in I.A.No.3 of 2018 inA.S.No.155 of 2000, his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 11.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the exclusive owner and possessor of hut bearing No.2/7/17/P together with 4 guntas of land and that he is in possession of the land since more than forty years. He purchased the suit land from one Nizamuddin in the year 1951 through a simple sale deed for a consideration of Rs.96.00. His possession was also recorded in the pahanies for the years 1951-52. The suit hut was also assessed in his name by the Municipality, but it was exempted from payment of tax. Thus he has been in continuous possession of the suit hut and land for more than forty years.

5. That the defendant has also filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 1973 against the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed for default on 26/11/1973, as such the said order has become final.

6. Even though the defendant has no right to evict the plaintiff from the suit property, as they are trying to take the assistance of revenue and police authorities, to illegally evict the plaintiff from the suit property and that the Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar and S.I. of police, at the instance of defendant, are openly declaring that they will bring the bulldozer and dismantle the hut, he filed the suit for injunction, and temporary injunction was granted vide order dtd. 26/8/1976, but in violation of the said order, the defendant has dispossessed him from the suit land on 11/9/1976 with the help of bulldozers. In view of the same, he filed the present suit for declaration of tile and for recovery of possession.

7. The defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of hut bearing No.2/7/17/P together with four guntas of land, and it is a fictitious door number. The alleged sale deed for Rs.96.00 purported to have been executed by Nizamuddin is fabricated for the purpose of this case, and not binding on the defendant.

8. It is stated that the Nizamuddin has no title to the land in the year 1957, as the land has vested in the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1947, and the entries in the pahanies has no effect, as the land belongs to Government till 1957, and the defendant, as a successor of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport Department, took possession of the land. The plaintiff was never in possession of the land and the defendant did not file any suit against the plaintiff. The suit in O.S.No.59 of 1973 was dismissed as no such person, or that hut was in existence, or in occupation of the property, and the land covered by the said suit was vacant. The said suit was dismissed even before the appearance of the defendant therein, as such, it does not affect the rights of this defendant under Order 9, Rule 3 CPC.

9. It is further stated that the plaintiff occupied the suit land on 28/7/1976 and tried to erect a stall therein. Therefore, the Depot Manager of defendant immediately informed about the illegal occupation of the plaintiff to the Commissioner, Municipal Counsel, who prevented the plaintiff from raising any structures. The Government removed all the encroachers on the land of defendant and delivered entire vacant possession of the land in Sy.No.1098, including the suit land, to defendant. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land including any land. The Government got evicted the illegal encroachments from the suit su