The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership and possession in a title declaration suit, which was not met in this case.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013 in A.S.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and where under the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2010 in O.S.No.1550 of 2004 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was reversed.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent No.1 herein is the defendant in the suit. Respondent No.2 herein is impleaded as party before the first appellate Court.

For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court i.e, the appellant herein is referred as plaintiff and respondents herein are referred as defendants.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of present Second Appeal are that originally one Zohra Begum was the owner and pattedar of land admeasuring Acs.660-00 gts and Acs.177.03 gts in survey No.162 (old) and new survey Nos.10, 11 and 6/2 of Mallepally village, Hyderabad Deccan; that she executed a will deed dated 14.01.1957 in respect of the said land in favour of (1) Khurshid Ali Khan, (2) Khulsum Begum, and (3) Sohra Begum and that she died in the month of December, 1957. The plaintiff as the legal heir of late Khurshid Ali Khan, later came into possession of the suit schedule property i.e., 104 sq.yards situated in survey No.162 (old) and 10 (new) of Mallepally, Hyderabad, enjoying all rights and title over the land.

Thereafter, when he tried to raise construction in the schedule property, the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff under the guise of false and fabricated documents and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Hence, the suit for declaration of tile and for perpetual injunction.

4. On the other side, the defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff inter alia contending that the suit schedule property was acquired for a valuable consideration by the ex-City Improvement Board (CIB), which is the predecessor of the A.P. Housing Board. The plaintiff as well as several other persons in fact made claims to the said property in earlier rounds of litigation and lost the same in favour of the defendant. It is contended that the CIB acquired the land situated at Mallepally from 1326 Fasli onwards by paying compensation to the rightful owners. Apart from the suit schedule property, the CIB acquired various other properties also in Mallepally area; that the plaintiff has no right, title over the suit schedule property. The lands at Mallepally including the suit schedule land were handed over to the Collector in pursuance of the letter No.6540, dated 01.12.1956, who in turn handed over the same to the CIB. The APHB being the successor to the CIB, became the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?”

6. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked.

7. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2010 by observing as under:

“Now it is to be seen the claim of the plaintiff, he filed the Certified Copy of the Will under Ex.A16. He has examined PW2 Mir Ashafaq Ali Khan who is the son of Late Riyasal Ali Khan and grand son of Late Kulsum Begum one of the beneficiaries of the Will, according to him said Kulsum Begum died and his father died, he went on to depose the ownership of Zohra in respect of 177 acres 3 guntas in 162 old and new sur