THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.64 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Appellant No.1 filed O.S.No.17 of 2001 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet for the multiple reliefs of recovery of possession of about 400 square yards of land, perpetual injunction in respect of another bit of land and mandatory injunction for removal of certain structures, poles, etc. She pleaded that one Sri Chenna Bassappa was the owner of Acs.4.34 guntas of land in Survey No.1/AA of Marikal Village of Mahaboobnagar District and that out of it, the Government acquired/purchased Acs.4.23 guntas way back in the year 1954. Out of the left over Ac.0.11 guntas of land, Chenna Bassappa is said to have donated Ac.0.04 guntas for Eshwar Temple in the Village and that Ac.0.07 guntas equivalent to 855 square yards was purchased by appellant No.1 through a sale deed, dated 23.06.1980. It was stated that when the vendor raised some disputes about the land, the appellant filed O.S.No.67 of 1980 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and that the suit was decreed on 10.11.2008 (Ex.A3). She pleaded that respondent No.3 issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act to her, alleging that she encroached into the Government land and that she in turn got issued notices under Section 80 C.P.C. (Exs.A1 and A2). She stated that the respondents encroached into part of the land highhandedly and erected poles, etc. With these pleadings, she claimed the relief of recovery of possession and perpetual and mandatory injunctions. The respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement. They pleaded that the decree in Ex.A3 was collusive one and that the so-called purchase made by appellant No.1 was speculative in nature. It was pleaded that after the Government acquired Acs.4.23 guntas of land, Chenna Bassappa was left with Ac.0.11 guntas and that he gave that piece of land to the Temple. Appellant No.1 herself is said to have admitted these facts. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 10.03.2004. Thereupon, the respondents filed A.S.No.1 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. The appeal was allowed on 23.09.2004. Hence, this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 died and her legal representative, appellant No.2, was brought on record. Heard Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Having regard to the nature of relief claimed in the suit, and the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were filed. The suit was decreed and in A.S.No.1 of 2004, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration of her title over the suit schedule land as prayed for by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of mandatory injunction against D1 to D4 as prayed for? 4. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the lower Court suffer from any infirmities and irregularities ad call for any interference from this Court? The appeal was allowed. There is a basic flaw in the suit filed by appellant No.1. The reliefs of recovery of possession and perpetual and mandatory injunctions were prayed for. It is permissible in law to claim the relief of perpetual injunction without claiming the relief of declaration of title. The relief of recovery of possession can be claimed generally as a corollary to the relief of declaration of title. It is only when there is no dispute as to the title, that the said relief can be claimed straightaway. However, the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be claimed in the absence of one for declaration of his rights. It can be claimed as a consequence as ancillary to the one of declaration of rights or title, as the case may be. In the instant case, appellant No.1 is said to have filed a suit against her vendor and obtained decree in Ex.A6. The plea of the respondents that the said decree was collusive in nature gains acceptability in view of the fact that the suit was filed within months from the date on which the property is said to have been purchased and it was decreed within months after it was filed. The very fact that there was no contest by the sole defendant therein discloses that it was filed for a different purpose altogether. The necessity for appellant No.1 to seek the relief of declaration of title once again, would have been obviated if only she claimed the relief of recovery of possession against her vendor, who was a party to Ex.A4. When she is claiming the relief of recovery of possession and perpetual and mandatory injunctions against the respondents herein, it was incumbent upon her to claim the relief of declaration of title. Though an issue was framed in this regard, the adjudication thereof cannot be effective in the absence of specific prayer and supporting plea. Hence, there was a serious defect in the frame of the suit itself. On merits, the evidence discloses that appellant No.1 herself admitted that the leftover property of Ac.0.11 guntas was donated by Chenna Bassappa to the Temple. This is evident not only from the written arguments submitted by appellant No.1 before the lower appellate Court, but also from Ex.A5 filed by her. It was as recently as in 2002 that the extent in possession of the Temple was shown to be Ac.0.11 guntas. In case appellant No.1 has any grievance about it, she ought to have initiated steps under the relevant provisions of law. Further, Ex.A5 would disclose that if Ac.0.7 guntas of land said to have been purchased by appellant No.1 is with the Temple, what was given to it was only Ac.0.04 guntas. Since the Temple was not a party to the suit, the occasion to examine this aspect did not exist. The lower appellate Court has taken these and other aspects into account and reversed the decree passed in the suit. This Court does not find any substantial question of law in the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. It, however, goes without saying that in case the appellants are otherwise entitled to file a suit for declaration, it shall be open to them to do so, duly impleading the persons or organisations, that are actually affected. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.12.2011. kdl