The burden of proof in a title declaration suit lies with the plaintiffs, who must establish ownership and continuous possession, which they failed to do.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – appellants – plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.09.1998 passed in A.S.No.18 of 1995 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Medak dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1995 passed in O.S.No.97 of 1989 by the learned District Munsif, Narsapur, Medak District.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule land to an extent of Ac.1-12 guntas in Survey No.278 and Ac.0-18 guntas in Survey No.279 situated at Solakpalli Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District. The plaintiffs contended that their father purchased the suit schedule property under a simple sale deed dated 12.02.1950 for a sale consideration of Rs.200/-. Since, then, their father was in possession of the suit land continuously by paying land revenue to the Government till his death in the year 1977. The name of the father of the plaintiffs was entered as possessor in the pahanies from 1958 onwards. The purchase of the suit schedule property was also recorded in the pahanies for the year 1964-65 and in the subsequent pahanies. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs inherited the suit land from their father and since then they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and were paying land revenue to the Government. Their names were also entered as possessors in the pahanies. The plaintiffs also obtained pattadar passbook from the revenue authorities. The simple sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the plaintiffs’ father was lost and the same could not be traced. The possession of the father of the plaintiffs and after his death that of the plaintiffs was continuous, open and hostile. They perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. They contended that they became absolute owners on the basis of long and un-interrupted possession. The defendants had no manner of right or title over the suit land. They were fraudulently and forcibly trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs and trespassed into the suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs and tried to grab the property. The names of the plaintiffs were also entered in the pahanies as pattadars for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. But the defendant No.1 fraudulently again got entered his name as pattadar in the pahanies from the year 1986 onwards and filed a caveat petition dated 18.10.1989 and sent copies to the plaintiffs falsely alleging that they were owners and possessors of the suit land. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and for consequential relief of injunction.

4. The defendant No.2 filed written statement, which was adopted by other defendants. The defendant No.2 contended that the defendant No.1 was the father of defendants 2 to 4 and that they constituted an un-divided joint Hindu family. The defendant No.1 during the year 1953-54 purchased the suit land bearing Survey No.278 to an extent of Ac.1-12 guntas and Survey No.279 to an extent of Ac.0-18 guntas, total Ac.1-30 guntas single crop wet land situated at Solakpalli Village with the funds of ancestral property for a consideration of Rs.1500/- from the original owner by name Suleman Ali Khan. The suit lands were purchased by defendant No.1 along with one Laxmikanth Rao. The entire money including the share of Laxmikanth Rao was paid to Suleman Ali Khan by defendant No.1. Prior to the said purchase, the defendant No.1 was cultivating the suit lands on batai basis. The said Laxmikanth Rao