The burden of proving lawful title rests on the plaintiff when possession is contested; failure to provide sufficient evidence leads to dismissal of claims for injunction.

JUDGMENT:

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 08.04.2024, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in A.S.No.330 of 2013, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 03.06.2013, passed by the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.517 of 2005 was confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants, 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 in the plaint are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.517 of 2005, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment in respect of H.No.8-2-602/34, measuring 647 square yards in Sy.No.129/65 (old) 242 (new) along with compound wall, situated at Road No.10, Zahara Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). It is averred that husband of plaintiff namely, late Mohd.Lateef-Ur-Rahaman purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed document No.942/1979 dated 25.05.1979 from one M.A.Waheed Qadri; that one Abdul Muneem Khan was the original pattedar of land measuring Ac.9-00 acres, out which Ac.2-10 gts was sold to to Mohini Bai and the remaining land was sold to various individuals; that title of Abdul Muneem Khan was well established with the link documents as well as kasra pahani and original registered release deed registered as 2979/65 dated 17.12.1965; that the Government issued a letter vide Dis No.F4/4246/98, dated 02.09.1998 addressed to the vendor’s vendor of the plaintiff stating that schedule property along with other property is identified in T.S.No.2/part, Block No.’M’, Ward No.11 of Shaikpet Village, correlating Sy.No.129/65 is a patta land and despite the same, defendants are disturbing the physical possession of the plaintiff by one pretext or other; that plaintiff submitted an application to the Government, especially, to the Survey and Settlement Department to conduct survey for demarcation of the schedule property and despite payment of requisite amount there was no response from the government officials. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

4. Defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and the same was adopted by the defendant No.1; it is averred that the schedule property is Government land situated in T.S.No.3, Block-M, Ward No.11 admeasuring to an extent of 667 Sq.yards, situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, backside of Our Palace Hotel duly fenced and in possession of the Government, which forms part of the Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad and that on 27.03.2005 Abdul Mannan along with unsocial elements removed fencing and tried to make construction of compound wall; that when the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Shaikpet Mandal along with demolition squad, tried to stop the construction, the said Abdul Mannan, threatened the Mandal Revenue Inspector with dire consequences and abused in filthy language; that the defendant No.2, sought police protection from Assistant Commissioner of Police vide Lr.No.D/2076/2002, dated 28.03.2005 and as a result of the request, the said illegal activities were prevented; that plaintiff is trying to mislead the Court by mentioning that the land in T.S.No.2/Part, Block-M, Ward No.11 of the Shaikpet Village