Title and ownership claims in property disputes necessitate credible documentation; statutory presumptions apply to documents over 30 years old.

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2024, in A.S.No.149 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015 in O.S.No.836 of 2007, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and the respondent No.6 is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.836 of 2007, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. During the pendency of appeal suit, the respondent No.3 herien i.e. the plaintiff No.4 in O.S.No.836 of 2007, died and the respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3 herein.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.836 of 2007, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer for declaration and possession of the schedule mentioned property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 died and the plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are added as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1.

4. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after conclusion of trial, decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.149 of 2015, before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 and 2/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 plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.836 of 2007, is as follows:

The plaintiff No.1 is the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff No.1, which was purchased under registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968. The plaintiff No.1 pleaded that he purchased the property from one Siddana Sathiraju and the plaintiffs vendors are in possession since 1907. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the plaint schedule property is a Gramakantam in Sy.No.402/1 and it is vacant site. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 created a gift deed dated 16.10.2006, in their favour and they also created a sale deed dated 15.03.2007, in favour of the defendant No.3. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the alleged sale deed and the gift deed created by the defendants is not binding on them and on 15.03.2007, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with the defendant No.3 trespassed into the schedule property. The plaintiffs further pleaded that on 12.03.2007, the defendants came to know about the encroachment and subsequently, the defendants created a sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit.

7. The defendant No.2 filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant No.1. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 are as follows:

The plaint schedule property and the house property situated to its west in a single plot admeasuring 165 feet X 65 feet, which is the ancestral property of the defendants. The defendant No.2 pleaded that the father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 constructed the house abutting the road on the west and kept the vacant site on the east for