THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.471 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.113 of 2001 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against the appellants for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The appellants opposed the same. The trial Court decreed the suit on 10.02.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.19 of 2005 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. The appeal was dismissed on 07.09.2006. The principal grievance of the appellants is that though it was a suit for injunction simplicitor, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court made observations to the effect that the respondents have proved title in respect of the suit schedule property. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, namely, whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. On behalf of respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. In the course of answering the sole issue, the trial Court made an observation to the effect that not only the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but also they have proved their title to the same. In the appeal preferred by the appellants, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the suit property is part and parcel of the burial ground? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property? (3) Whether the decree and judgment by t he learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty are liable to be set aside? All the three points were answered in favour of the respondents. In a suit for injunction simplicitor, though a Court can refer to the title of the respective parties to verify whether the possession over the property is referable to such title or without any basis, it cannot make any final pronouncement upon that question. It is only in a suit for declaration of title that the Court can decide such issues. The trial Court categorically held that the respondents have proved their title. Such an observation is outside the scope of the suit and the lower appellate Court did not advert to the same. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed, making it clear that the observation made by the trial Court as to the title of the parties vis-à-vis the suit schedule property shall not be treated as final and that question is left open to be decided in the proceedings which the parties may institute, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.07.2010 kdl