IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof to establish title and possession lies with the plaintiff, and failure to meet this burden results in dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff being unsuccessful in both the Courts below, has filed the present Second Appeal.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff in the trial Court and respondents are defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the trial Court. Suit was filed by plaintiff vide OS No.1715 of 2003 and thereafter AS No.259 of 2009, questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1715 of 2003.

3. The plaintiff filed Suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Plaint’s schedule property is part of Plot no. 7.

4. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that he purchased 1,479 square yards in old Survey No. 129/71 (new no. 144) of Shaikpet village, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills from Kamal under a registered sale deed dated 5.9.1968 (Ex.A1). Subsequently, the municipal corporation acquired 257 square yards for road widening, leaving the plaintiff with the remaining 1,222 square yards.

5. The defendants claimed no knowledge of the location of the land as claimed by plaintiff. They asserted that the plaintiff mistakenly claimed the suit property as part of the land purchased by defendants under the sale deed dated 5.9.1968. Defendants contended that the suit property was not part of the land in the plaintiff's sale deed but was instead part of Acs.3.15 guntas in Plot No. 7. Plot No. 7 had been assigned by the Government to their ancestor, Narayan Bhavanani, after acquiring their Plot No. 18 (Acs.3.36 guntas) in Jubilee Hills for the development of a nala. Plot No. 18 was subsequently cancelled and replaced with Plot No. 7, which was given to defendant No. 3’s husband.

6. It is the claim of plaintiff that he had mortgaged his property under Ex.A1 to secure a loan of Rs 25 lakhs from Syndicate Bank but failed to repay it. Consequently, the Bank /creditor filed case OA No.1279 of 1999 before Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery. The Tribunal passed final orders and issued execution warrant for the sale of the mortgaged property.

7. Defendants 3 to 5 filed Claim Petition No. 31 of 2004, in the OA claiming the property, with the bank and the plaintiff as respondents in the claim petition. The Tribunal, recognizing the importance of the property's location, appointed a Deputy Director of Survey and Land Reforms to locate the land and submit a report (Ex.B2). The surveyor attempted to locate the property in the presence of an Advocate-Commissioner, the parties, and their counsels. The report concluded that the property shown by the plaintiff did not match the land purchased under the sale deed (Exhibit A1). The Surveyor and Commissioner provided three reasons for their findings, which led to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s land could not be identified. The surveyor's report was accepted while allowing the defendants' claim petition. The Tribunal concluded that the property shown by the plaintiff was not the one purchased under the sale deed (Ex.A1). Thus, the plaintiff failed to identify his own land.

8. Litigation between the parties (defendants and Kamal- the vendor) predates the plaintiff's purchase from Kamal. Defendants 3 to 5 had a history of litigation with Kamal, in suit (OS No. 118 of 1968) where Narayana Bhavanani claimed the suit property, resulting in a decree in his favour.

9. The defendants in OS No. 1715 of 2003 relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5024/91 (Ex.B19), which stated that a triangular portion measuring 16 guntas, jutting into Survey No. 144, should be in the possession of and treated as the property of the defendants herein- i.e., Kamal. The judgment further clarified that the plaintiff/respondent had no claim to this portion, and the land in Plot No. 7 in survey no. 151/4 shall belong to defendants 3 to 5( Ac.2.39 guntas).

10. According to defendants plot no. 7 in survey no. 151/4 and Survey no. 144 are adjacent to each other. Hence, defenda