When a defendant admits the title of the original owner, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to substantiate any claim of subsequent ownership through a valid transfer, failing which the court may draw an adverse inference particularly in the absence of original title documents.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. B. Nishitha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, (‘trial Court’), wherein suit filed seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and refund of compensation amount has been decreed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 7/plaintiffs. The parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. During the pendency of the present appeal, this Court granted order of status quo on 13.02.2019 pending disposal of the appeal. When the said order was in force, plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 7 dug three bore wells in the suit schedule property. Out of said three bore wells permission was granted for only one bore well. During the operation of the order of status quo as the plaintiffs dug the bore wells, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed Contempt Case No.1489 of 2019 before this Court with a prayer to punish the plaintiffs.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The brief facts of the case are that Plaintiff No.1 filed suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and refund of compensation amount which defendant Nos.1 and 2 received for the landed property acquired by the Government for the construction of Sripada project. The suit is filed with respect to land in Sy.No.409 to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas, Sy.No.410 to an extent of Ac.7-28 guntas, Sy.No.433 to an extent of Ac.1-14 guntas, Sy.No.434 to an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas, Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.7-39 guntas, Sy.No.436 to an extent of Ac.3-32 guntas and Sy.No.555 to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas of Kalvacherla Village shivar of Kamanpur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’).

5. After service of summons in the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 made their appearance, but defendant No.1 alone filed the written statement and defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are official parties remained ex parte.

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, while so, he addressed a letter to defendant No.3 on 28.12.2005 to not to change the entries with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the third parties. By taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff No.1 during the year 2007-08, defendant No.1 on the basis of fabricated documents by colluding with official defendants and managed to mutate the suit schedule property in his favour. Plaintiff No.1 never sold the suit schedule property in favour of anybody. After learning about the mutation in favour of defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 filed an application before defendant No.5 leading to enquiry vide proceedings No.B/635/08, in which notices were issued to plaintiff No.1 as well as defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 submitted to defendant Nos.3 to 5 that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have illegally claimed compensation of Rs.5,31,350/- with respect to land in Sy.Nos.410 and 435 admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.1-24 guntas, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Manthani, while acquiring land for Sripada Project. Plaintiff No.1 claimed that the compensation amount ought to have been deposited before the Court for adjudication of the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. H