In suits for title, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish ownership, not merely rely on the defendants' weaknesses; continuous possession alone does not confer title.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 in O.S No.347 of 2005 passed by the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. The suit schedule properties were shown as agricultural lands to an extent of Acs.25.00 gts., in various survey numbers i.e. Sy. Nos.212, 213, 216 to 219 and 222 to 227 situated at Kongara Kurdu village Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents-defendants were none other than the sisters of the appellant-plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that originally the schedule lands along with other lands in the same village belonged to their grandfather Chetkuri Shiva Reddy. After his death, his son, namely, Chetkuri Ramachandra Reddy (father of the plaintiff and defendants) succeeded to the entire estate. The father of the plaintiff was having three sons and six daughters. He performed the marriages of all his sons and daughters during his lifetime except that of his younger . son Hari Kishan Reddy. His daughters were living happily at their respective in-laws houses. Subsequently, the elder son of Chetkuri Ramachandra Reddy, by name, Chetkuri Dayanand Reddy @ Shiva Reddy died in the year 1974 leaving behind him his wife and his two sons as his legal representatives. The father of the plaintiff also died 22 years ago. After the death of Ramachandra Reddy, the plaintiff, his younger brother Hari Kishan Reddy and the legal heirs of his elder brother late Dayanand Reddy @ Shiva Reddy orally partitioned the entire property among themselves. The plaintiff succeeded to the suit schedule property along with other properties. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands as owner and possessor. The revenue authorities also entered the name of the plaintiff in the possessory column for the past more than 16 years. The defendants were very well aware of the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and never objected him. The defendants were not having any sort of right, title or interest in and over the schedule properties. But, their names were found in patta column from the year 1987 onwards without any proceedings or sale documents. By taking advantage of the said wrong entries in the revenue records, the defendants came to the suit schedule property on 17.09.2005 and tried to . occupy the same with the help of their sons and other antisocial elements. Immediately, the plaintiff resisted their illegal acts with the help of his brother and other neighbours. The defendants damaged the existing crops over the schedule land and while leaving the site, stated that they were the pattadars and they would occupy the same in one way or other. Immediately, the plaintiff approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal and applied for certified copies of pahanies and came to know that the names of the defendants were recorded in the patta column from the year 1987 onwards. Earlier to that, their names were also found in possessory column. In fact, the defendants were neither the pattadars nor in possessio