THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.800 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.122 of 1998 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that being a landless poor person, she occupied the suit schedule property viz., Ac.2.00 of land in Survey No.460/3 of Vemula Panchayat, Mundlamur Mandal and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 15 years. According to her, an application filed by her for grant of D-form pattas is pending consideration before the Mandal Revenue Officer. It was stated that the 1st respondent sold that property in favour of the 2nd respondent on the basis of a fake settlement patta and the 2nd respondent in turn filed O.S.No.211 of 1989 in the same Court against her for injunction. The suit is said to have been dismissed and that during the pendency of the appeal, the 2nd respondent has re-conveyed the property to the 1st respondent, and he, in turn started interfering with her possession. The 1st respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. It is stated that the property belongs to him, since it was assigned to him by the revenue officials. He referred to the various proceedings that ensued before different Courts including this Court and asserted title and possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 08.102.009. The appellant filed A.S.No.13 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The appeal was dismissed on 08.07.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though his client filed documents into the Court, they were not marked as exhibits, on account of the negligence on the part of his counter part in the trial Court. He further submits that an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant to establish her case. The suit is for injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. whether the suit is barred by resjudicata in view of Judgment and Decree in O.S.211/89 on the file of this court? 2. whether the plaintiff occupied the suit schedule property about 15 years ago as contended by the plaintiff? 3. whether the cause of action shown by the plaintiff is true and correct? 4. whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants? The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and she filed Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were filed. The suit as well as the appeal preferred by the appellant were dismissed. The appellant did not assert any title by way of transfer or succession. According to her, she occupied the Government land and acquired rights. The 1st respondent on the other hand pleaded that the land was allotted to him through orders, dated 29.05.1965 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer ,Nellore, marked as Ex.B.4. He also placed reliance upon other documents. The only way, in which an individual can assert rights of possession over Government land, can be by placing reliance upon the orders of assignment, if any, or the cist receipts. The appellant did not file any of them. Though it was her case that she entrusted such documents to her counsel, no positive steps were taken even at the stage of appeal. At one stage of her evidence, she stated that she was dispossessed by the 1st respondent. Added to that, no independent evidence was adduced before the Courts below to establish the possession of the appellant. Hence, there was no other alternative, except to dismiss the suit. If the appellant has any independent title vis-à-vis the property, she can file a suit for declaration and other reliefs. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the appellant to avail other remedies as are open to her in law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 16.09.0211 JSU THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.800 of 2011 Date: 16.09.2011 JSU