THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY S econd A ppeal No.956 of 2008 JUGDMENT: The defendants in O.S. No.468 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, are the appellants. The respondent ﬁled the suit for the relief of the injunction against the appellants with a prayer to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the respondent, over the suit schedule property. Through its judgment dated 21-04-2004, the Trail Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent ﬁled A.S.No.16 of 2004 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was allowed through judgment dated 22-04-2008. Hence, this second appeal. The appellants contend that the respondent based her claim over the suit schedule property, on a sale deed dated 22-09-2002, marked as Ex.A-2, and the evidence on record clearly establishes that the boundaries of the suit schedule property do not tally with those, in Ex.A-2. They plead that the lower Appellate Court had deviated from the record, in taking the view, that the respondent is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the entire suit schedule property. Sri B. Siddaiah, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the respondent based her claim on Ex.A-2, and the Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court clearly found that the dimensions and the boundaries of the plaint schedule do not tally with those, found on the ground. He contends that the trial Court had undertaken comparison of the boundaries and recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that they do not tally. He submits that there is no basis for the lower Appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, in a suit for injunction, it is not necessary for a plaintiﬀ to prove the title, and what becomes relevant is, the possession. He contends that the Trial Court concentrated its attention on the question of title, whereas the lower Appellate Court examined the matter from correct angle. The suit ﬁled by the respondent was, for the relief of injunction-simplicitor. The trial Court framed only one issue, viz., whether the respondent is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 to 3 were examined. Ex.A-1 is the plaint plan, and Ex.A-2 is the registered sale deed. On behalf of the appellants, DWs 1 and 2 were examined. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner with the consent of the parties. Plan and report submitted by the Commissioner were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2, respectively. The trial Court made extensive reference to the dimensions of the suit schedule property, with reference to Exs.C-1 and C-2, as well as Ex.A-2. It recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that the property mentioned in Ex.A-2 is too small, when compared to the one, in the suit schedule. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court framed a point, which is similar to the issue, framed by the trial Court. It interfered with the judgment of the trial Court, on the ground that there was no basis for insistence on link documents, to the entire extent of the property. In its judgment, the lower Appellate Court did not record any ﬁnding, as to the factum, much less, the basis of possession of the respondent, over the suit land, in excess of the one, covered by Ex.A-2. Though it is not necessary for a plaintiff in the suit for injunction, to establish title, he must, at least, show the basis for his possession over the land. A plaintiﬀ cannot be permitted to rely upon a document, in support of his possession, and at the same time, claim the area, beyond what is covered by that very document. One signiﬁcant aspect is that, the appellants did not made any claim over the land, covered by Ex.A-2. Therefore, the trial Court committed error in refusing the relief, even as regards the extent, for which there was no controversy. The lower Appellate Court went to the other extreme and decreed the suit, in respect of the extent, which is not covered by Ex.A-2. This Court is of the view that a decree can be passed in favour of the respondent, to the extent of the land, covered by Ex.A-2, and leaving it open to her, to work out the remedies, vis-à-vis any area, in excess of it, in the form of declaration, and consequential reliefs. Hence, the Second Appeal is partly allowed, and the judgments of the Trial Court in O.S.No.468 of 2002, and the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.16 of 2004, are set aside. O.S.No.468 of 2002 shall stand decreed, for the relief of perpetual injunction, to the extent of the suit schedule property, covered by Ex.A- 2. As regards the balance of the land, it shall be open to the respondent to work out her remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-09-2008. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO*