THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.868 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.513 of 2002 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the appellants for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0.18 cents of land in Survey No.89/1 of Somapuram Village, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa District. She pleaded that the suit land was purchased by her under a registered sale deed, dated 18.09.2002, Ex.A1, and the respondents are trying to interfere with her possession without any basis. It was pleaded that the total extent of the land in Survey No.89/1 is Acs.4.10 cents jointly held by Meesala Ankaiah and Vailu Pedda Gangulu equally and after excluding Ac.0.16 cents, which was used for formation of the road, both the branches divided it into equal shares. The respondent is said to have purchased Ac.0.18 cents on the extreme west of the survey number from one of the legal descendants of Vailu Pedda Gangulu’s branch. The appellants are said to be the legal heirs of Vailu Nadipi Gangulu, brother of Vailu Pedda Gangulu, and they resisted the suit. They referred to the sale deed, dated 29.06.1939, through which the land was purchased jointly and the subsequent manner of the enjoyment thereof. Through judgment, dated 31.08.2004, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.49 of 2004 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 05.03.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below were not clear as to the location of Ac.0.18 cents and though the respondent did not make any effort for identification thereof, the suit was decreed and the appeal filed against it was dismissed. He further submits that it was incumbent upon the respondent to establish the location and in the absence of the same, the relief of perpetual injunction could not have been granted. He further contends that the trial Court did not take on record, the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Sri P.Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the boundaries furnished in the sale deed, Ex.A1, are so clear that hardly there would be any difficulty in identifying the suit schedule property. He contends that the appellants are not clear as to the nature of their right or the type of devolution. He submits that as long as the appellants have not challenged the right of the vendor under Ex.A1 to sell the property, there was no basis for the appellants to interfere with the possession of the respondent over the property. The relief claimed by the respondent was in the form of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0.18 cents of land bounded on East: by the balance of the land belonging to Vailu Pedda Gangulu and Vailu Nadipi Gangulu; West: by the rastha of the width of 30 links; North: by the road leading to Somapuram Village; and South: by the crop channel. From this, it is evident that the western boundary of the entire land in Survey No.89/1 is rastha of the width of 30 links. On northern and southern sides, there are permanent boundaries, namely road leading to Somapuram and crop channel respectively. She based her claim on the purchase made through Ex.A1 from one of the members of Vailu family. The appellants belong to that very family and their resistance to the suit was mainly on account of the absence of identity of the plot. The trial Court framed two issues for its consideration namely whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. The respondent examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the appellants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were filed. The suit was decreed and the lower appellate Court framed one point for its consideration and answered the same in favour of the respondent. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff has to establish a semblance of title. In the instant case, the respondent filed sale deed, Ex.A1, through which she purchased the property, as well as other link documents. The appellants did not challenge the right of the vendor of the respondents to sell Ac.0.18 cents. If their plea was that there was no partition, the respondent would have stepped into the shoes of one of the co-parceners. On the other hand, if the partition has taken place, they were not entitled to interfere with the possession of the respondent over the suit land. Much argument is advanced on the question of identity of the suit schedule property. It has already been mentioned that on three sides of the suit schedule property, there exist permanent boundaries in the form of roads and irrigation channel. The rest of the land in Survey No.89/1 is on the eastern side. Therefore, there ought not to have been any difficulty in identifying Ac.0.18 cents purchased under Ex.A1. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondent tried to encroach into the land over and above Ac.0.18 cents. Further, if the appellants are of the view that the vendor of the respondent did not have right to sell the suit schedule property, they could have filed a suit for declaration. Once the respondent has established her prima facie title and possession over the property, there was hardly any scope left for denial of the relief of perpetual injunction. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have taken correct view of the matter and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt. 04.10.2010. kdl