A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - appellants - plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 passed in A.S. No.156 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007 passed in O.S. No.14 of 2003 by the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

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

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of land in Survey No. 225 in Sailampoor shivar of Suleman Nagar Village of Kotagir Mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the owners and possessors of dry agricultural land to an extent of Ac.00-20 guntas each abutting each other in one single block in Survey No. 225. They purchased the suit lands under respective registered sale deeds, both dated 11.11.2002 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,000/- each from its original owner A.Bhavani Shankar Rao. The suit lands were mutated in the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. The defendant No. 1's family used to run a Khandsari Sugar Mill under the name and style of 'Om Khandsari Sugar Mill' situated to the further south of the suit lands. The said Khandsari Sugar Mill was defunct and was not in use since more than 17 years. The owners of the said mill were using the open land of Seetharamaswamy towards south and west of the suit lands for drying the cane pulp, when the said mill was functioning. Since then, the said lands and the suit lands remained fallow, on which some trees had grown up. The defendant No. 2 was the watchman of the said Sugar Mill. On 03.02.2003 at about 11:00 AM, some laborers under the supervision of defendant No. 2 began to cut down the trees grown on the suit lands. The plaintiffs having come to know rushed to the suit lands. With the help of neighboring people, they managed to stop defendant No. 2 and his laborers from proceeding with illegal felling of the trees on the suit lands. When questioned, the defendant No. 2 stated that he was doing so as per the instructions of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs gave a complaint to the Police Kotagir. But as the matter was involving the possessory rights of the plaintiffs, which the defendant No. 2 infringed as the agent of defendant No. 1, the suit was filed against both of them for a decree of perpetual injunction to safeguard their interest.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement submitting that defendant No. 1 was the nephew of one Sri. Ram Swaroop, S/o. Sri Devaram Agarwal, R/o. Suleman Nagar Village of Kotagir Mandal, who was at present residing at Hyderabad. The defendant No. 2 was the watchman of the said uncle of defendant No. 1. Mr. Ram Swaroop was the owner of the Khandsari known as Om Khandsari Sugar Mill, which was situated on the southern side of the suit land. The said factory was not functioning and the building of the said factory was in dilapidated condition. The land measuring Ac.1-10 guntas comprised in Survey No. 224 would fall on the northern side of the factory. The said land of Ac.1-10 guntas comprised in Survey No. 224 of Suleman Nagar of Kotagir Mandal was purchased by the uncle of defendant No. 1 Sri Om Prakash under a registered sale deed document No. 5801 of 1971 dated 24.07.1971 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- from its previous owner and possessor M/s. Deccan Plantation Private Limited, Anand Nagar through its Special Director and General Power of Attorney Sri. Laxmi Chand, S/o.Kunvarji, R/o.Anand Nagar. Since the date of purchase, the uncle of defendant No. 1 being the absolute owner was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The defendants 1 and 2 were looking after the land on behalf of Sri Om Prakash. The plaintiffs having knowledge that Sri Om Prakash was the owner and possessor of the suit land malafidely failed to implead the said Om Prakash as defendant in