THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1612 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This is the third round of litigation in respect of a suit filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The appellant filed O.S.No.13 of 1978 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar for the relief of injunction simplicitor against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of Ac.1.00 of land in Survey No.102/10 of Mahaboobnagar. It was pleaded that she purchased an extent of Acs.9.25 guntas of land in Survey No.102/2-E of Mahaboobnagar and out of it, the Government acquired Acs.7.25 guntas for the purpose of a hospital. In the balance of Acs.2.00 of land, huts are said to have been erected in Ac.1.00 with her permission and that the suit schedule property is the remaining Ac.1.00. S h e pleaded that the suit schedule property was assigned sub-division No.102/10. She alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that they purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 of land from the same person from whom the appellant purchased Acs.9.25 guntas and that their land is assigned sub-division No.102/9. According to them, the suit schedule property is part of said Acs.2.00 of land. The trial Court initially decreed the suit on 23.02.1982. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.40 of 1982 in the Court of the District Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The appeal was allowed on 17.07.1982 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a specific direction that it shall make an effort to identify the suit schedule property with reference to survey number. After remand, the suit was decreed on 26.03.1984. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.39 of 1984. The appeal was dismissed on 22.06.1990. S.A.No.484 of 1990 was filed before this Court. Through judgment, dated 13.03.2002, this Court remanded the matter to the trial Court by framing an additional issue, touching upon the identity of the property with reference to survey number. After remand for the second time, the trial Court decreed the suit on 30.12.2003. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.10 of 2004 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The appeal was allowed on 12.09.2005. Hence, this second appeal. Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are said to be the purchasers from respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.Mahipathy Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.8. A small dispute as to the relief of injunction is pending adjudication for the past more than three decades. Twice the matter was remanded. Since the property was a vacant land, much depended upon its identity. According to the appellant, the land was initially part of Survey No.102/2-E and after the Government acquired Acs.7.25 guntas, remaining Acs.2.00 of land was assigned sub division No.102/10. It has already been mentioned that respondent Nos.1 and 2 claim to have purchased the land from the same source and that their land is assigned Survey No.102/9. Though the suit was filed for the relief of injunction, identification of localization of the land became relevant, particularly when it is a vacant land. After the second remand also, nothing substantial has taken place. The Commissioner was appointed to undertake the exercise. There was no participation of the Officers of the Survey Department. However, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records was examined as a witness. He stated that there is no official sub- division of Survey No.102. In this scenario, it becomes difficult to grant the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of a small bit of land forming part of survey number with vast extent, namely about Acs.400.00 of land. It is only when a suit for declaration of title, which in turn may takes in its fold, the question of identity; is filed, that proper adjudication takes place. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the purchasers of part of the suit schedule property from the appellant, filed O.S.No.77 of 2009 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. In view of this development, nothing needs to be adjudicated in O.S.No.13 of 1978. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. It shall be open to the parties to urge all the contentions in O.S.No.77 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:13.12.2011 kdl