Possession does not establish ownership; to claim injunction, the plaintiff must prove legal title. Failure to prove title results in denying both title and injunctive relief.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mancherial, in O.S.No.10 of 2017 (Old O.S.No.23 of 2015 of District Court, Adilabad), dated 27.02.2019, wherein, respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are granted the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.3 to 5/defendant Nos.4 to 6 from interfering with the suit schedule properties while dismissing the relief of declaration of title.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.10 of 2017.

Facts of the case:

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of themselves and defendant Nos.7 to 10 as owners and possessors of suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and their family members from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10 over the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are land in Sy.No.545 admeasuring Ac.5-37 Gts. and Sy.No.546 admeasuring Ac.5-02 Gts., situated at Chennur Village and Mandal; land in Sy.No.90 admeasuring Ac.6.05 Gts., Sy.No.115 admeasuring Ac.9- 16 Gts., Sy.No.91 admeasuring Ac.2-25 Gts. and Sy.No.462/1 admeasuring Ac.0-22 Gts., situated at Kattersala Shivar, Chennur Mandal.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah and one Late Narayana, husband of defendant No.7 and father of defendant Nos.8 to 10 were pattedars of lands in Sy.Nos.545 and 546. Said lands were in the name of Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah as pattedar and possessor as per pahanies of the year 1955, 1957 and 1958. After the death of Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah, the mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Varala Venkatamma was in possession as owner and subsequently, the plaintiffs came into possession of the lands as pattedars and possessors and their names are reflected in the pahanies.

6. The plaintiffs’ mother Varala Venkatamma was the pattedar and possessor of lands in Sy.Nos.90, 115 and 91 and the pahanies of the years 1983, 1985 and 1987-88 reflected her name as pattedar and possessor during her life time. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10 were in possession and the same is evident from the pahanies. The land in Sy.No.462/1 is the patta land of the plaintiffs’ father and mother, they were in possession during their life time and after their death, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.7 to 10 are in possession. The plaintiffs’ father died 42 years ago and the mother died 30 years ago. When the plaintiffs’ father died, the plaintiffs were aged two or three years. The plaintiffs were aged about 14 or 15 years when their mother died.

7. The defendant No.1 is the paternal uncle’s wife. After the death of Chinna Ramulu i.e. husband of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 is living in the house of plaintiffs as there was nobody to look after their welfare and acted as their guardian. When the plaintiffs became majors, they along with defendant Nos.7 to 10 were cultivating the suit lands as owners and possessors as Class-I legal heirs of Varala Venkataih and Varala Venkatamma. The defendant No.1 who is aged more than 80 years old was dependant on th