THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO A.S.NO.2145 OF 2001 DT.22.04.2010 Between: Gurajala Peeramma and another …………….Appellants Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another. ………………Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs under Section 96 of C.P.C., assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 1997, dated 29.06.2001 on the file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, wherein and whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title, perpetual injunction and rectification of entries in respect of Agricultural Land bearing S.No.18, admeasuring Ac 4.17 guntas, situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was dismissed. Heard Sri G.Gopal Govind Naik, Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy and Sri Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the respondents. The facts of the case in brief are that in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, they set forth a claim to the effect that one Syed Shah Yahia Alam Khadri was the original owner of the suit land. Later, father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2, namely, Maraiah came into possession and accordingly, he purchased the property from Syed Shah Yahiya Alam Khadri, in the name of his son Balraj and plaintiff No.2-Narasamma through a sale deed, dated 25.11.1959 for a valuable consideration. Since then, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequent to the death of the husband of the plaintiff, namely Balraj, plaintiff No.1 became the sole legal representative of plaintiff. Thereafter, the officials of the defendants came to the suit land on 27.12.1996 and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs by force and the same is registered. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the said suit for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and rectification of records. Contesting the claim of the plaintiffs, the case of the respondents is of total denial as regards the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The specific averment on behalf of the respondents/defendants was to the effect that the land in S.No.18 is a Government land and the same is recorded as poramboke Sikham Kunta. Therefore, the plaintiffs or the vendor of the plaintiffs had no right or title over the property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Basing on the above pleadings, the court below framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiffs can be declared as the owners of the suit land? 2) Whether the plaintiffs names an be entered in Revenue Records? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction as prayed for? 4) To what relief? In order to prove the respective cases of the parties, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and marked Exs.A1 to A-9 on their behalf. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-15. The court below after considering the material evidence placed on record, did not find favour with the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit holding that even though the plaintiffs are in permissive possession, against the real owners, the relief of injunction cannot be granted in their favour. Therefore, they are also not entitled to seek the relief of injunction against the defendants, who are the real owners. Hence, the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the material placed before this court, the question that arises for consideration in this appal is as to whether the appellants/plaintiffs have established their title. The additional documents which are sought to be filed by the plaintiffs such as pahanis, sale deeds and certain memos, etc., are required to be properly proved and require to be appreciated once again. In the circumstances, we feel it desirable that an opportunity should be given to the appellants for a fresh consideration of the case in regard to the title and possession over the property.. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court below passed in O.S.No.39 of 1997, dated 20.06.2001 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law and on merits, after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence afresh, if they choose to do so. It is made clear that the interim orders which have been in force during the pendency of this appeal directing the appellants not to change the physical features of the property and also not to alienate the schedule property shall continue to remain in force , till the disposal of the suit. The court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt this order. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.22.04.2010 Note: Registry to sent back the record of the court below, for passing orders afresh.. B/o tjs.