In land disputes, the plaintiff bears the burden to establish title; mere possession is insufficient without clear evidence of ownership.

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2018, in A.S.No.01 of 2015, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 21.08.2014, in O.S.No.125 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

2. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.125 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, with a prayer for declaration of right and title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

3. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, allowed the appeal without costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellants herein are the defendants, the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.125 of 2010.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.125 of 2010.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.125 of 2010, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac.0.73 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.88 cents in S. No. 106/6, and the father of the plaintiff acquired the property under a gift deed dated 24.04.1967. The plaintiff pleaded that his father died intestate on 12.08.1989, and all the properties devolved upon his legal heirs. On 31.10.1989, the grandmother of the plaintiff and the sister of the plaintiff executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff, relinquishing their joint right in all the properties that devolved on them upon the death of Vytla Veerraghava Rao, i.e., the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the properties covered under the gift deed dated 24.04.1967 and that he is in possession of the same. He also obtained pattadar passbooks and paid land revenue to the Revenue Department.

The plaintiff further pleaded that the land belonging to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, covered under Sy.Nos.106/5 and 105/4, and that, as the plaintiff is a landlord in their village, defendant No. 1 and his son, who is defendant No. 3 herein, are making hectic efforts to encroach upon the plaintiff‟s land situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. The northern side of the land is upland, admeasuring approximately Ac.0.10 cents, and the remaining southern side of the plaint schedule property is cultivable land.

The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 tried to encroach upon the dimma land of the plaintiff, and the men of the plaintiff obstructed them from committing such illegal acts. He further pleaded that the defendants are making claims over the plaint schedule property and are attempting to encroach upon the cultivable land of the plaintiff by proclaiming in the village that they intend to purchase the same. The plaintiff apprehends that