A suit for injunction requires plaintiffs to establish de jure possession rather than a mere claim, particularly when disputes over title arise.

1. Original plaintiffs in O.S.No.73 of 1994 preferred this appeal under section 100 CPC impugning the reversing judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla in A.S.No.91 of 1997. The original sole defendant in O.S.No.73 of 1994 is respondent No.1. During the pendency of the appeal, he died and respondent Nos.2 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives. Appellant No.2 also died during the pendency of this appeal and therefore appellant Nos.3 to 5 came on record as his legal representatives. A learned Judge of this court on 12.01.2002 admitted the second appeal on formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

1. Whether the lower appellate court is entitled to disbelieve the decree passed in 1927 in favour of the appellants without assigning any valid reason?

2. Whether is it proper for a lower appellate court to overlook the categorical finding of the trial court that Ex.A1 is tallying with the plaint plan boundaries and the appellants established their possession over the suit schedule property and reversed this finding without any cogent reasons? S.A.No.75 of 2002

2. Sri Krishna Mohan Sikharam, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondents submitted arguments. In essence, learned counsel for appellants supports the judgment dated 02.09.1997 of learned Principal Munsif Magistrate, Bapatla in O.S.No.73 of 1994 and argued that the learned first appellate court erroneously reversed it. For respondents, the contention is that the judgment dated 06.11.2001 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla in A.S.No.91 of 1997 is correct on facts and law and it rightly reversed the trial court’s judgment.

3. The property in dispute is Ac.0.06 cents of vacant site which is equivalent to 242.81 square meters situate in locality No.10 of Bapatla Municipality. Specific boundaries on all four sides are given. The prayer in the suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site.

There was Sri Vemula Venkaiah and he had two sons by name Vemula Venkata Krishnaiah and Vemula Rama Mohana Rao.

During earlier times, there was a suit among family members concerning various properties and in O.S.No.179 of 1927 a compromise decree was passed and by virtue of it, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of the above referred father and two sons. Over the period of time, all of them died. 1st plaintiff is the son of the above referred Venkata Krishnaiah. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the above referred Rama Mohan Rao.

Together they filed the suit for permanent injunction on the S.A.No.75 of 2002 premise that since the time of the compromise decree, their ancestors and after their lifetime, these plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the defendant being a chronic litigant is attempting to interfere with their possession and occupy this property and therefore seeking protection of their possession, the suit was laid.

4. The sole defendant put in his written statement wherein he denied all these allegations. He states that Sri Bolisetty Seetha Ramaiah is his father and he had filed O.S.No.162 of 1946 for recovery of possession of property and District Munsif Court, Bapatla decreed the suit in favour of him and against one Sri K.

Veera Swamy and others and thereafter the decree holder filed E.P.No.528 of 1947 and obtained delivery of possession of the said property which by then included a dilapidated thatched house and this delivery was obtained on 15.11.1947. What was obtained delivery of was the ve