A plaintiff must establish lawful possession to obtain a permanent injunction; failure to prove possession results in denial of relief.

The present Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 20.01.2023, passed by Principal District Judge, Warangal in AS.No.108 of 2016, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.S.No.465 of 2009 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3 . Succinctly, the facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the suit was filed for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff averred that he purchased the suit schedule property under a registered document, dated 20.02.2009 from one Syed Hilaluddin Quadri and since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

3 . 1 . It was averred that the vendor of plaintiff by name Syed Hilaluddin Quadri is son of one Ms. Rafia Sulthana, who inherited the property from late Raheemunissa Begum, D/o Peer Pasha Quadri, therefore, the vendor of the plaintiff acquired the suit property as a legal heir of late Syed Peer Pasha Quadri. The name of Raheemunissa Begum was mutated in the Revenue Records and as such, the vendor of the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of suit property, who in turn sold the same to plaintiff. The defendants who are strangers, with an intention to grab the suit property, tried to encroach and occupy the same. Hence, the suit for grant of perpetual injunction.

4 . Defendant No. 1 did not choose to appear before the trial Court and hence, he was set ex parte.

4 . 1 . Defendant No.2 filed his written statement denying the entire averments of the plaint. He stated that the defendant No. 1 works as a videographer under plaintiff, with whose assistance, defendant No. 1 has fabricated false documents. 4 .2. It was averred that the suit land is only 303 ¼ square yards in Sy.No.2 1 0 of Ursu village and it belongs to his father Poosa Ramulu who has two plots, one is the suit property and another plot is at Kummariwada, Warangal. That a division took place more than 20 years back in which, defendant No.2 was allotted the suit property and father of defendant No. 1 by name Poosa Srinivas was allotted the plot situated at Kummariwada. Warangal. The father of defendant No. 1 sold his share of plot and enjoyed the sale proceeds. The defendant No.2 got mutated the suit plot in the name of his wife in the Municipal records and they migrated to Palvancha about 30 years back for doing business. The suit land is in the name of wife of defendant No.2-Shashirekha, as such, she is a necessary party to the suit and hence, this suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

5 . Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the “( 1 ) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent Injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief?”

6 . To establish the case, the plaintiff examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs-A 1 to A 1 0 on his behalf and the defendants examined DW 1 and got marked Exs.B 1 to B- 3 on their behalf.

7. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 27.01.2016. The trial Court observed as under:-

“In the present suit, since the defendant No.2 is claiming right, title and possession in respect of suit schedule property, that his father, was the rightful owner who purchased the same under Ex.B-1, by denying the right, title and possession of PW1, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to establish that his vendor was the lawful owner and he executed Ex.A1, in pursuance of the same, he has got valid title and lawful possession over the suit schedule property.”

7. 1 . The trial Court further observed