THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1551 OF 2011 15.12.2011 Between: Pemmanaboina Nageswara Rao …Appellant AND Mandapalli Raju …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1551 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff in the Courts below is the appellant. His suit being O.S.No.775 of 2004 for permanent injunction was dismissed by the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry on 29.01.2010. His appeal being A.S.No.34 of 2010 was also dismissed on 17.08.2011 by the Family-cum-Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. Aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed. The appellant alleged that he purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.0.50 cents in R.S.No.231 situated at Kondaguntur Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, under registered sale deed dated 22.05.2003 from Kota Adilakshmi, Kalumuri Bulli Venkata Rao and Kalumuri Satyanarayana; he has been in possession of land and in the last week of May, 2004, the defendant made false claims with regard to the property necessitating filing of the suit. The sole defendant filed the written statement opposing the suit. His case is that he purchased the same suit schedule property from K.Adilakshmi under registered sale deed dated 31.01.2001 and is cultivating the land but the plaintiff highhandedly trying to enter into the plaint schedule property, whereupn the defendant and his wife gave a complaint to Station House Officer, Rajahmundry. The trial Court framed three issues. The plaintiff examined four witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 including Ex.A.1, Sale Deed; Ex.A.3, Title Deed passbook and Exs.A.4 and A.5, tax receipts, to prove his possession and title. On his part, the defendant examined two witnesses and marked Exs.B.1 to B.12 which include Ex.B.4, pattadar pass book; Ex.B.5, Tax Receipt and Exs.B.6 to B.12, Adangals. During the trial, it transpired that Kota Adilakshmi, the vendor of the defendant executed Settlement Deed in favour of her grandson, but subsequently she cancelled the same and then handedover possession to the defendant. Considering this aspect and also the other aspects, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that when the vendor of the defendant executed the settlement deed, Ex.B.3 in favour of the grandson, she could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant and the cancellation deed, Ex.B2 is not valid as it is unilateral. According to the counsel, when the defendant failed to prove his title, the Courts below ought not to have believed Exs.B.4 to B.12, which were pressed into service to show the possession of the defendant. A perusal of the Judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court would show that both the Courts found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession under Ex.A.1, sale deed, though he marked Ex.A.1, sale deed executed by three vendors. The Courts further held that the vendor of the defendant under Ex.B.1, sale deed executed earlier in point of time, which improbablises the case of the plaintiff. These findings cannot be faulted. Indeed, in a suit for injunction based on title, it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and also possession. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove his possession. The second appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.12.2011 Pln