The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title in a suit for declaration, and discrepancies in boundaries do not invalidate their registered sale deed.

COMMON JUDGMENT: 

These appeals are filed against the Common Judgment and decree dated 10.10.2022 in A.S.Nos.11 and 12 of 2009 passed by the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in which the Judgment and decree dated 30.12.2008 in O.S.Nos.76 & 90 of 2003, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, was confirmed.

2. Parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.Nos.76 and 90 of 2003.

3. The brief facts of the case are that initially one P.Sri Vidya and P.Karthik filed separate suits vide  O.S.No.76 and 90 of 2003 against one Arjula @ Ponnala Vaishali, for declaration of title and for consequential recovery of possession and for correction of entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs stated that they are absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.192/A/10, admeasuring Acs.5-19 gts each, situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District.

They purchased the said property from one J.V.Lakshman Rao, through registered sale deed vide  document Nos.2812 and 2813 of 1999, dated 12.07.1999. He purchased the land admeasuring Acs.10-38 gts in Sy.No.192/A/10, through registered sale deed bearing document No.585 of 1998, dated 23.02.1998, from one V.Narayana Rao, who is none other than his father-in-law. It is also stated that V.Narayana Rao arranged the sale transaction between plaintiffs and J.V.Lakshman Rao and also attested the sale deed executed by J.V.Lakshman Rao in favour of plaintiffs. He had shown the location of the property to plaintiffs and also assured them that property is free from encumbrances and charges. In the sale deed executed in favour of J.V.Lakshman Rao, the southern boundary of the property was shown as Sy.No.193.

When plaintiffs questioned the same, both J.V.Lakshman Rao and V.Narayana Rao represented that it was a mistake and there was no such Sy.No.193 on the southern boundary and they promised that they will rectify the same. Accordingly, they purchased the property and from the date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. In the third week of May, 2002, plaintiffs faced disturbances from their vendor and some others and they made false claim, as such they filed O.S.Nos.122 and 123 of 2002, for perpetual injunction. Defendant also filed another suit against them and sought for title over the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed executed in her favour by one A.Satya Prasad, who purchased the property from one K.Sharath Chandra. The said K.Sharath Chandra purchased the suit schedule property from one G.Satyanarayana, who purchased the same from V.Narayana Rao through G.P.A holder V.Padma i.e., wife of V.Narayana Rao, by way of unregistered sale deed. It is stated that the said G.Satyanarayana after purchasing the property, applied for sanction of patta in his name and got the unregistered sale deed validated and also got revenue entries mutated in his name and thus claiming ownership over the suit schedule property. The learned Junior Civil Judge, after hearing the petitions filed by plaintiffs and defendant, passed a Common Order granting injunction in favour of defendant and dismissed the petitions filed by the plaintiffs, against which they preferred C.M.A.Nos.18, 19 and 20, in which it was observed that multiple questions of title are involved and filing a comprehensive suit is appropriate and directed the defendant not to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties.

5. It is further stated that vendor of plaintiffs along with V.Narayana Rao, who is the vendor’s vendor of the plaintiffs, in collusion with defendant created several transactions with a mala fide intention to deprive plaintiffs from their ownership and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. They created unregistered sale deed dated 25.05.1996, on a subsequent date to disturb their title. Plaintiffs have filed O.S