THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1439 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.100 of 1996 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of 24 guntas of land in Survey No.657/A of Theegula Village, Jagadevpur Mandal, Medak District. He pleaded that the property accrued to his father under the A.P. Telangana Area (Inams Abolition) Act and that after his death, he succeeded to the suit schedule property. It was mentioned that his name was entered in the revenue records from 1988 onwards and that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. He complained that the respondent started interfering with his possession without any basis. The respondents filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to them, the father of the appellant herein sold the said property way back in the 1956 an ever since then, they are enjoying the same in different manners. The property is said to have been divided into plots and that it is covered by a compound wall. They further pleaded that the cattle shed and poultry shed constructed by them are existing thereon. Through judgment, dated 06.01.2003, the trial Court dismissed the suit. AS.No.2 of 2003 filed by the appellant in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Siddipet was dismissed on 18.06.2004. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for the respondents. Normally, in a suit for injunction, only one issue is framed viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction. However, in this case, in addition to the said issue, an issue pertaining to limitation was also framed. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.sA.1 to A.4, the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1988-89, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.29 were filed. The Commissioner was appointed in the suit and his report and other documents were taken on record as Exs.C.1 to C.6. Without taking the trouble of establishing the title, the appellant could have proved his possession by leading oral and documentary evidence. His consistent plea was that the property is a vacant land and agriculture is being carried out in it. However, P.W.2 stated that there exists cattle shed and poultry shed over the land, and it is surrounded by a compound wall. In his cross-examination, the appellant admitted the existence of compound wall, but stated that the respondents are in lawful possession of the property. Once the appellant admitted the possession of the property by the respondents, he becomes disentitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, irrespective of the fact whether the possession of the respondent was lawful or unlawful. In case, the respondents are not entitled to remain in possession, the appellant can certainly file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. Even now, he can take such measures. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 14.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1439 of 2004 Date: 14.12.2011 JSU