In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff bears the burden to establish clear ownership, and evidence of ownership must supersede mere registrative acts.

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 09.11.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba, in A.S.No.28 of 2019, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2019, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, in O.S.No.87 of 2014 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 are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.87 of 2014, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of 2 1/2 guntas of land in Sy.No.772/3/paiki (hereafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). In the plaint it is averred that plaintiff’s wife purchased the schedule property through registered sale deed bearing document No.1022/1984 from one Sri Namilikanti Nagappa. Later, the vendor got approved the plots through D.T.C.P into two bits i.e. 30 x 40 each with specific boundaries, which plaintiff got ratified vide registered document bearing No. 3561 of 2008 dated 07.07.2008 on the basis of agreement of sale dated 21.01.1987. It was further averred that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of two bits as absolute owner. Later, major part of plot said to have been purchased by the respondents, was affected for formation of roads. The respondents kept quite then and now taking advantage of plaintiff’s innocence picked up quarrel with him in order to grab his plot. Therefore, plaintiff approached the Hon’ble Lok Adalat and the Hon’ble Lok Adalat advised both the parties to approach Court of law. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and regularized the plot vide orders G/LRS/38/2164/2013 dated 20.05.2013 and obtained permission for construction and was ready to construct house, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from schedule property. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff is no way concerned with the schedule property. Neither the plaintiff nor his wife is owner or possessor of schedule property; that the averment that plaintiff’s wife Shankaramma purchased the schedule property and ratified the same vide registered document bearing No. 3561 of 2008 is false and further agreement of sale are not binding on the defendants; that they are absolute owners and possessors of schedule property having purchased the same on the name of defendant No.1 through registered document bearing No. 1950 of 1984 dated 17.11.1984 and plaintiff is not in possession of suit property and that the proceedings of Municipality are created for the purpose of suit and the same is barred by limitation; that originally, Nemilikanti Nagappa is pattedar and possessor of suit property and defendants purchased some portions of land from him three times i.e., 133 Sq.yards, vide registered sale deed bearing No. 1950 of 1984, dated 17.11.1984, 33.3 Sq.yards, vide registered sale deed bearing No. 1957 of 1984, dated 17.11.1984, and 133 Sq.yards, vide registered sale deed bearing No. 735 of 1985 on 22.04.1985 respectively. It is further averred that after the purchase, defendants are in possession of the schedule property and p