The court affirmed that in property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership, and mere possession does not establish title without documented support.

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2024, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet District, at Suryapet, in A.S.No.09 of 2024, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 09.04.2021, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, in O.S.No.159 of 2011 was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated tin the plaint are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2011, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the residential vacant site bearing D.No.2-1-225, measuring 309.07sq.yards, situated in Suryapet Municipality (hereafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). It is averred that parental grandfather of plaintiffs namely Sathu Venkanna was the owner of the schedule property; that out of love and affection, he gifted the schedule property to plaintiffs through registered Gift deed No.7874/11, dated 09.08.2011; that plaintiffs were in possessions of the schedule property and since the house was dilapidated, plaintiffs removed old structure and constructed basement to the ground level and applied for permission with the municipal authorities to construct house and the same is pending. Defendants without having any right over the schedule property, tried to occupy the same on 31.08.2011, which was resisted by the plaintiff and the defendants threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them at any cost. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendants filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contended that Sathu Venkanna was not the owner of the schedule property, therefore, the question of executing gift deed and handing over the possession of the schedule property does not arise and that all the documents submitted by the plaintiffs are false and created in collusion with municipal officials to file this suit. It is further averred that defendants are in possession of the schedule property since 1982 and since, their house collapsed, they removed the old structure and constructed basement. Plaintiffs filed false suit to grab the schedule property and infact the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, workmen, servents etc., from causing interference the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

(2)) To what relief?”

6. During the course of the trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2021.

8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:-

“5.1. The case of plaintiffs is simple that their grandfather was original owner of suit schedule property and he gifted the same to them t