THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.19 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.164 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for declaration of title and consequential injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property, against the appellant. It was pleaded that one Dadena Ramakka, wife of Konday Reddy, owned a very large extent of land in survey Nos.158/1A and 2 of Nagarajupalli Village, Kadapa, and substantial portion thereof was acquired by the APSRTC. The remaining land was said to have been divided into plots and sold to different persons. On 21.04.1980, Smt.Dastagiramma, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other hand, are said to have purchased an extent of Ac.0.14 cents of land, each, from Ramakka. It is stated that the appellant has also purchased Ac.0.03 cents from Dastagiramma, and thereby, he became the owner of Ac.0.17 cents. From the same Dastagiramma, one Mr. Venkata Ramanaiah purchased an extent of Ac.0.03.4 cents, through a sale deed, dated 19.09.1985, marked as Ex.A.4. Through him, the respondents are said to have purchased the same under a sale deed, dated 28.01.1994, marked as Ex.A.7. It was complained that the appellant is trying to encroach into the land purchased by the respondents. The appellant filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. He has also filed a plan along with the written statement. It was stated that though the respondents purchased an extent of Ac.0.03.4 cents of land, the one shown in the plaint plan is not the same property. He has furnished the particulars of Ac.0.17 cents purchased by him and denied the allegation that he interfered with the possession of the land. The boundaries of various plots that were carved out of the land in survey Nos.158/1A and 2 were also furnished. The trial Court dismissed the suit, in entirity, through its judgment, dated 09.02.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.65 of 2005 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, through judgment, dated 14.11.2008. Hence, this Second Appeal. Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court found that the respondents failed to establish their title and possession over the suit schedule property and there was no basis for the lower Appellate Court in reversing the decree. He contends that the actual claim made by the respondents was about a triangular piece of land, shown in the plan enclosed to the written statement, and the respondents did not derive any title in respect of that land. He submits that the lower Appellate Court has misconstrued the evidence on record. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the claim made by his clients was for Ac.0.03.4 cents of land purchased under sale deed, dated 28.01.1994, marked as Ex.A.7 and the title as well as location thereof was proved beyond any pale of doubt. He contends that the trial Court was a bit confused about identity of the suit schedule property with reference to the maps placed before it, and the lower Appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter. The appellant, on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, purchased bits of land from the same survey numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.158/1A and 2. The appellant directly purchased an extent of Ac.0.14.4 cents of land from the original owner Ramakka and an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land from Dastagiramma, who, in turn, purchased from Ramakka. The respondents, on the other hand, purchased an extent of Ac.0.03.4 cents of land from Venkata Ramaiah, who, in turn, purchased the same from Dastagiramma. Ac.0.03 cents of land purchased under Ex.A.3 by the appellant from Dastagiramma and Ac.0.03.4 cents of land covered by Exs.A.4 and A.7 are abutting each other. In the plaint map also, the respondents depicted virtually the same thing. In view of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaint schedule land 0.03.4 cents is not situated in the place shown as A B C D in the plaint plan? 3. To what relief?” Fairly large volume of evidence was adduced before the trial Court. On behalf of the respondents, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.36 were marked. On behalf of appellants, DW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Out of them, Ex.B.2 is nothing but replica of Ex.B.1 - a sale deed, dated 21.04.1980. The trial Court directed survey of the land and the record relating thereto was marked as Exs.X.1 to X.4. The suit was dismissed. The trial Court mostly went by the survey undertaken by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. That was in relation to fixation of the boundaries of Field No.158. It did not take into account, the fact that the land came to be partly acquired by the APSRTC and the remaining land was divided into small plots. Therefore, the survey cannot resolve the controversy at all. The lower Appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., “whether the respondent is entitled for ad interim injunction and answered the same in favour of respondents”. This is a case where the respondents, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other hand, purchased different extents of land from the same survey numbers. The claim of the respondents is based upon Exs.A.4 and A.7, whereas the appellant purchased different extents of land under Exs.A.1 and A.3. None of them disputed the legality, or validity of the sale deeds in favour of the other. Therefore, hardly there exists any basis for denial of the relief of declaration of title in favour of the respondents. The trial Court was mostly guided by the location, that too, according to the survey records. The derivation of title through a sale deed from a rightful owner should straight away lead to declaration thereof. Even where a person is vested with title, but is found to be not in possession of the property, the relief of declaration cannot be denied. Therefore, the trial Court was clearly in error in denying the relief of declaration to the appellant. There would have been some scope for rejection of injunction to the respondents, had it been a case where they claimed possession for a different extents of land, or if the appellant established that de hors the title of the respondents, he has assumed the possession of the land covered by Exs.A.4 and A.7. That is not the case here. Their apprehension was that, under the guise of seeking relief over the plot covered by Exs.A.4 and A.7, the appellant is trying to encroach into a triangular piece of land, abutting the land of Ac.0.17 cents, owned by the respondents. The various sketches made available to this Court discloses that the triangular piece was on a totally different direction and it has no common boundary with the land covered by Exs.A.4 and A.7. The lower Appellate Court had examined the record and held that the respondents have proved their case for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the relief granted in favour of the respondents shall be confined to the plot of land covered by Exs.A.4 and A.7 and not any other part of land. In case there exists any dispute, as to boundaries, it shall be open to the respondents to resolve the same by taking recourse to law and seek necessary remedies under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:17.08.2009. GJ