THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.192 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed O.S.No.95 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, for the relief of injunction, against the respondents, in respect of the suit schedule property, comprising of a residential house and a Church, in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, in survey No.274 of Pedagantyada Village. He pleaded that the houses of himself and the respondents in Gangavaram Village were acquired for the purpose of steel plant and to accommodate the houses and Church, the Government land was made available to them at Pedagantyada. He claims to have constructed a house and Church in the land and stated that the respondents are trying to disturb his possession. After the suit was filed, the appellant got amended the plaint to incorporate the plea of recovery of possession. The respondents filed written statement opposing the suit. According to them, the suit land was earmarked for the benefit of the entire community and the appellant had tried to grab it for himself. The trial Court decreed the suit, on 14.09.2001. Thereupon, respondents 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.217 of 2001 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The appeal was allowed on 27.11.2003. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: a) “Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? b) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? c) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of possession as prayed for? e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?” On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.13 were filed. The decree passed by the trial Court was reversed by the lower Appellate Court. As observed earlier, the suit was initially filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor. Thereafter, the relief of recovery of possession was included. The appellant did not claim any title in the property. The relief was claimed on the basis of the exercise of exclusive rights over the property. It is, no doubt, true that a suit for recovery of possession can be filed, without there being any prayer for declaration of title. That, however, would be possible, if only the plaintiff asserts the title and is not faced with any resistance from the defendant. When the plaintiff himself does not assert title, he cannot seek the relief of recovery of possession, without there being a prayer for declaration of title. It is not as if a person, who is in possession of the property without having any title over it, is helpless. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, enables a person in possession without title, to file a summary suit for recovery of possession. If he is able to establish that he has been in possession of the property, six months prior to the institution of the suit and he was dispossessed otherwise through the course of law, the Court is bound to pass a decree for restoration of possession. The appellant did not avail that remedy. Even now, he can file a suit for declaration of title, if he is of the view that he has any such right and pray for consequential relief. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:01.12.2011 GJ