The burden of proof for ownership lies on the plaintiff; defendants must substantiate possession claims to qualify for legal protections under the Transfer of Property Act.

Judgment:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010 in A.S.No.114 of 2005, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 16.09.2005 in O.S.No.49 of 2002, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2002, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa.

3. The plaintiff initiated action against the sole defendant in O.S.No.49 of 2002, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, with a prayer for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property by evicting the defendant, his agents, servants, etc., and by removing his material there from, for mesne profits from the date of suit till recovery to be determined by a separate application and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.114 of 2005, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the first appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.49 of 2002, is as follows:

The father of plaintiff A.S. Rama Iyer @ Ramaswamy purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed, dated 28.08.1968 and since then the father of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. The plaintiff is the only son of his father. The name of the plaintiff is mutated in the revenue records and Government also issued title deed and pattadar passbook in favour of the plaintiff for the suit property recognizing his title over the same. The plaintiff also paid tax for the suit schedule property. The revenue authorities also issued 10(1) Adangal in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property. In the year 1994 while the plaintiff was cultivating the suit schedule property, the defendants made an attempt to trespass and grab the same and as such the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.64 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, S. Kota, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants preferred an appeal, A.S.No.102 of 1998 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.64 of 1994 and the said appeal was allowed by setting aside the decree passed by the District Munsif Court, S. Kota, on the ground that the father of plaintiff made admission before the Land Reforms Tribunal that the defendants were in possession of the suit schedule property in pursuance of an agreement of sale, dated 05.03.1970. The plaintiff filed second appeal, S.A.No.395 of 2001 before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 07.09.2001 holding that the plaintiff did not prove his possession over the suit property. The father of the plaintiff during his life time executed a Will on 05.09.1999 in favour of plaintiff and the father of plaintiff died on 04.02.2001 and after demise of the father of plaintiff, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property as per the Will, dated 05.09.1999. The father of