THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY A.S.No.1130 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in O.S.No.140 of 1999. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, i.e., the present appellants as per the original plaint is that the plaint schedule property is their ancestral property from times immemorial. It was acquired by the plaintiffs' great-great-grand father and he exercised the rights of ownership and after inheriting the property, the plaintiffs have been exercising the rights over the property, which was mutated 90 years ago. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant-temple without any right over the property proclaiming that the property was endowed and dedicated to the Religious Endowment Board and started claiming the same. On account of claims and counterclaims with regard to ownership, the tenants stopped payment of rents. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction. According to the plaint, the cause of action arose on 01.12.1993 when the defendant proclaimed that the schedule property was endowed. Subsequently, the plaint was amended seeking prayer of declaration and consequential possession and injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per the amended plaint, the extent of property is shown as 225 square yards for the purpose of valuation. In the original plaint, there is no proper description of the property. Other than the boundaries, no survey number is mentioned and there is not even an averment about any threat of dispossession. What all stated, as already referred, is that the plaintiffs filed the suit, when the defendants proclaimed that the suit schedule property was endowed to them. While amending the suit, no where it is stated as to when exactly the plaintiffs were dispossessed for the first time. The extent of the property is shown as 225 square yards, that too, only for the purpose of valuation. In the original plaint, the extent is shown as 400 square yards for the purpose of valuation. In the schedule, the property is shown as "A vacant site along with a tinsheet shed and four wooden bunks" situated at Narasimharao peta of Alcot Gardens, II ward of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation is bounded as follows: East: Road leading to Dowlaiswaram South: Site belonging to the plaintiffs West: House property belonging to T.Panduranga Rao North: House property belonging to Pilla Narasimhapatrudu. A vacant site of an extent of 400 square yards with all easementary rights, a tin sheet shed and four wooden bunks under tenancy.” 4. The above schedule shows that the plaintiffs are not at all sure about the identity of the property. A tinsheet shed and four wooden bunks cannot extend into 400 square yards. It is not clearly mentioned that part of the property is vacant and part of the property is covered by tinsheet shed and wooden bunks. The above nature of the plaint and amended plaint clearly show that the suit is a speculative one. 5. Defendant-temple filed a written statement contending that the defendant diety is the absolute owner of Kannamma Perantalu Ammavari temple, and its appurtenant site with boundaries shown and the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 100 years. Plaintiffs had no title or possession. Plaintiffs' ancestors or the plaintiffs never exercised any rights of ownership or possession over the property of the temple. The schedule given in the plaint is vague and incapable of localisation. The plaintiffs case that the defendant has been proclaiming that the plaint schedule site was endowed and dedicated to the Religious Endowment Board is false. Earlier, the entire temple property was being managed by members of reddy community residing in Narasimharaopet. They leased out a part of the site, i.e., to an extent of 8 square yards each to four persons, who were paying rent of Rs.20/-. Later, the Endowment Department took over the management of the temple property in the year 1990 and in the year 1991 the rents were enhanced. Plaintiffs never cleared rents for the property. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues and additional issues are framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable under law? 3. Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs? 4. To what relief? Additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have title to the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the defendant had preferred title by adverse possession? 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked and Ex.X1, copy of injunction warrant and plaint in O.S.No.413 of 1984 on the file of Principle District Munsif Court, Rajahmundry was marked. 8. After considering the material on record and after discussing the issues, the court below dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Now, the point for consideration is, Whether there are any grounds to allow the appeal? 10. As already referred, the plaint is very vague and in the amended plaint also same vagueness continued. It is not stated as to when exactly the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the property and in the original plaint, there is no proper description of the property. No survey number was mentioned either in the original plaint or in the amended plaint. It is mentioned that the property was purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiffs under Ex.A1 etc., which they claimed during the course of trial. When there is no averment regarding the claim, the same cannot be considered at all. 11. Further more, as found by the learned trial Judge, it is not mentioned as to how the plaintiffs have succeeded to the properties under Exs.A1 and A2, as there are two persons that have allegedly purchased the property. But the plaintiffs are claiming as successors of only one branch, it is not clear as to what has happened to the other branch and what happened to the rights of the other branch. Ex.A1 shows that Nandiga Appadu and Kannaiah purchased the property and the plaintiffs are claiming as descendants of Kannaiah. But nothing is referred about the descendants of Appadu, another purchaser. In fact, all these contentions with regard to acquiring the property under Ex.A1 etc. are irrelevant as there is no mention about the same in the original plaint or in the amended plaint. 12. As already discussed, the averments in the plaint and the amended plaint would show that the suit is a speculative suit, there is no proper description of the property and proper pleading with regard to the ownership. There is no date on which the plaintiffs were threatened on account of which they sought injunction. There is no date as to when exactly the plaintiffs were dispossessed, on the basis of which, they have amended the plaint seeking recovery of possession. 13. In all the circumstances, there is absolutely no case for allowing the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 3rd August 2009 Rns