Appellants failed to establish title and lawful possession over property, as required for claims of ownership and injunction.

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 20-02-2015 in A.S.No.112 of 2012, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.09.2012 in O.S.No.461 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.461 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.461 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram, with a prayer for declaring the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act- Cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second 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.461 of 2005, is as follows:

The plaintiff No.1 is the son, and the plaintiff No.2 is the wife, of late Gudivada China Thati Naidu of Chodamma Agraharam Village in Possapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The plaintiffs pleaded that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties belonging to late Gudivada China Thati Naidu and that he died in the year 1989, leaving behind the plaintiffs and another son by name Gudivada Sanyasinaidu, i.e., the husband of the defendant No.2 and father of the defendant Nos.3 to 6. The plaintiffs further pleaded that after the death of late Gudivada China Thati Naidu, as the properties inherited from him were not partitioned, the plaintiffs filed a suit against Gudivada Sanyasinaidu and his wife, Gudivada Eswaramma, i.e., the defendant No.2, for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share in the joint properties in O.S.No.45 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Vizianagaram. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants in the said suit, i.e., Gudivada Sanyasinaidu and the defendant No.2, entered into a compromise, and the same was referred to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, both the parties filed a compromise petition vide I.A.No.27 of 1999, wherein the compromise was recorded, and an award was passed on 29.01.1999 in terms of the compromise.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that they were put in possession of the said property as per the terms of the compromise and that the plaintiffs have been enjoying the properties that fell to their share with absolute rights. Gudivada Sanyasinaidu, i.e., the husband of the defendant No.2 and the father of the defendant Nos.3 to 6, enjoyed the rema