THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.967 of 2010 Dated:10.02.2011 Between: E.Guravaiah, And others. ...Appellants And S.Subbalakshmamma, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.967 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.82 of 2005, dated 11.10.2007, confirming the order of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, in O.S.No.1389 of 2002 dated 03.11.2005. The defendants are the appellants. The respondents instituted the suit for perpetual injunction alleging that they purchased plaint A to I schedule vacant sites (house sites) from E.Venkatramaiah under registered sale deeds and that the defendants with the help of rowdy elements tried to raise thatched huts on 08.12.2002. The suit was opposed by the defendants. They allege that the entire property sold by their father E.Venkatramaiah is ancestral property in which defendants 1 to 3 have 1/3rd share and even if the sale deeds executed by father are true, plaintiffs cannot have any title, right and interest. The trial Court framed two issues. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 8 deposed as P.Ws.1 to 5 besides P.W.6 and P.W.7. They also marked Exs.A1 to A10 which are the registered sale deeds executed by E.Venkatramaiah. The first defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and except examining D.W.2, no documentary evidence was adduced. On considering the evidence, the Court recorded a finding that E.Venkatramaiah sold his property for his family necessities as recited in the sale deeds Exs.A1 to A10, and therefore, the plaintiffs proved that they have title as owners of the respective plots. Observing that the possession has to be protected, the suit was decreed. The first appellate Court reappreciated the evidence and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The Counsel for the appellants submits that even according to Exs.A1 to A9 the property is described as ancestral property, that by the time sale deeds were executed the defendants were majors and Venkatramaiah could not have validly sold the share of the coparceners. The suit is one for injunction. The issue relevant in such a suit is whether the plaintiffs proved possession and non-grant of injunction would result in legal injury. Nevertheless, in appropriate case if the plaintiff claims possession based on a document of title or a document of possession there could be an enquiry collaterally into validity thereof. This is well settled. When the plaintiffs alleged that the property is joint family property the burden is on them to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint properties. Further, when the plaintiffs pleaded that Venkatramaiah sold the property for family necessities it is incumbent on the defendants to bring in rebuttal evidence. No effort was made. In this background unless and until they establish that the sale deeds executed by their father late Venkatramaiah are not binding on them, they cannot have any valid ground. The Courts below have appreciated the issue in right perspective. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.02.2011 vs