HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, in A.S.No.21 of 2022, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 17.06.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, in O.S.No.646 of 2017 was confirmed.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2017 before Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of H.No.3-1-265/2, admeasuring 111.11 Sq.yds, out of which plinth area 250 sft in Sy.No.85, situated at ward No.3, Block No.1, Gunj Road, Adilabad (hereafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). In the plaint it is averred that originally, one Pathula Sharma was the owner and possessor of the schedule property and on 02.03.1996, he died leaving behind defendants as his legal heirs. Defendants being legal heirs executed GPA document No.186 of 2015, date 08.01.2025, in favour of the plaintiff to empower him to lease, mortgage and also to sell the schedule property. Basing on the said GPA, plaintiff executed sale deed in his name vide sale deed No.3694 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015, for a sale consideration of Rs.5,95,000/- and paid the amount to defendants and further schedule property has been mutated in his name; that defendant No.1, was in possession of the schedule property and requested plaintiff to allow him to stay there till he finds an alternative accommodation, but, even after six months, he intentionally did not vacate the premises. Therefore, plaintiff issued legal notice on 10.07.2017, however, defendants did not comply the same. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendants filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and contended that they are joint owners and possessors of the schedule property and have sold a part of the H.No.3-1-265/2 to an extent ofAc.33.77 Sq.yds to Anitha Sharma and she sold the same to one Gangadhar; that defendant No.2, is residing in the remaining portion of the schedule property since long back and was also paying property tax from time to time; that plaintiff got registered a sale deed for 1000 sft, in his favour without consent and knowledge of the defendants and the same is not binding upon them and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property by evincing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as prayed for? (3) To what relief?”

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exs.A2 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 were examined, Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 17.06.2022.

8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- “In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff is required to prove his case on his own strength and has to stand on his own legs. Even, if the defendants have not been able to prove their ownership over the suit property, the plaintiff cannot be said to have succeeded in establishing the title to the suit property without proving the title through documentary evidence in his favour. In this case, both parties admitted that defendant's father was the original owner and both of them failed to prove the same. As discussed above, as the defendants had no title over the suit land, and so they cannot authorize the plaintiff by executing GPA to execute sale deed on thei