Claimants in a title suit must independently prove ownership; reliance on defendants’ weaknesses or adverse possession arguments is insufficient without establishing a valid claim.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the appellants on admission.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (‘First Appellate Court’) in A.S.No.14 of 2024, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, (‘Trial Court’) in OS No. 1 of 2003, wherein a suit file seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession has been dismissed.

3. The background facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs claim to be owners and possessors of the suit schedule property consisting of 1422.75 square yards situated at Bathkammakunta, Kamareddy. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 are purchasers and the remaining appellants are their legal heirs. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of open land admeasuring north eastern side 252 feet, western side 225 feet and east to west 490 feet, purchased by the father of the appellant Nos.1 to 5 from the owner Late Abdul Hameed under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 12.07.1958. Thereafter, said open land was converted into plots vide L.P.No.481 of 1984 and some plots were alienated. Ever since purchase, the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased by them. The appellants are running a toddy shop in the suit schedule property. The respondents have filed a suit against the appellants on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kamareddy in O.S.No.114 of 1986 claiming ownership and possession and the same is still pending. The appellants claim that the respondents are not owners and not having possession, but have illegally occupied the suit schedule property three years prior to filing of the suit. The appellants requested the respondents to vacate the suit schedule property, but the same was postponed on one pretext or the other. Therefore, left with no option, the appellants have filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 have filed a joint written statement, whereas respondent No. 2 died during pendency of the suit leaving behind his legal heirs. The defendants denied the case of the appellants about the appellants being in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 50 years as owners. Respondent No.1 constructed 20 rooms in the suit schedule property and some of the rooms were occupied by the respondents and their families and some are let out to tenants. The houses were constructed 30 years prior to the filing of the suit and respondents are residing therein. Further, a hut is constructed and the same is used as toddy shop. The appellants purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12.07.1958 from Abdul Majeed, but the same is wrong as Abdul Majeed was not the owner of the suit schedule property which is in the possession of respondents. The respondents admitted filing a case against the appellants and its pendency. The respondents claim to have purchased the suit schedule property 50 years ago and they are in continuous possession and also perfected the title by adverse possession.

5. During the pendency of suit, appellant Nos.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 27 died and their legal heirs were brought on record as appellant Nos.37 to 41, 21 to 26, 30 and 31 and 32 and 33 to 36 respectively. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 have died and their legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.9 to 12, 15 to 20 and 21 to 24 respectively were brought on record. Respondent Nos.25 to 27 were impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.109 of 2013 dated 30.06.2015.

6. Respondent No.3 filed additional written sta