THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.453 of 1996 JUDGMENT: The defendants in O.S.No.658 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Warangal, are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for permanent injunction with regard to house property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the schedule property originally belonged to the first plaintiff and on 21.05.1968, there was an agreement to exchange the suit schedule property with one acre of land in survey No.409 of the first defendant and a registered exchange deed was executed accordingly. The said property was said to have been fallen to defendant Nos.1 to 4. It was later found that the said property was attached and sold by the Government in public auction as the husband of the first defendant was indebted to the Government. Therefore, there was re-exchange of the land and on 28.05.1976, first defendant on her behalf and on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4 executed an agreement and delivered possession of the property on 27.06.1976. Therefore, the plaintiffs have been in enjoyment of the property and a part of the property was also leased out, and the defendants have no right or interest in the property. The second defendant remained ex parte and the first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.3 and 4. It was contended that the exchange dated 21.05.1968 is final and if there is any defect in the title, the remedy of the plaintiffs is otherwise. The first defendant has no power to enter into any transaction on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4. The agreement alleged subsequently is not valid and enforceable. There was no delivery of possession as alleged, but the sale and attachment of one acre of the property is illegal and the matter was agitated and the claim of the defendants was accepted. The second defendant filed a separate written statement subsequently alleging that he filed a suit – O.S.No.62 of 1969 for partition of the property and there was no partition in 1964. The first plaintiff with the assistance of the elders has broke open the lock of the house and entered into the property and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit on 18.01.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.5 of 1988 to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Warangal, and the appeal suit was allowed on 25.07.1996 and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed and the following substantial questions of law are raised:- A. Whether in a suit for injunction simplisitor, the Court can decide the question of title that too without framing an issue? B. Whether a decree for permanent injunction can be granted in support of and to protect the possession obtained forcibly? C. Whether the rights accrued under registered exchange deed can be put and to by on document executed by 3rd parties under duress and portion? The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants strongly contends that there is no valid title proved by the plaintiffs and if that is so as against the real owner of the property, no injunction can be granted. So far the possession of the property is concerned, there is no dispute and in fact the trial Court has also recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that under Ex.A-10, the house was delivered on 27.06.1976. D.Ws.2 to 4 also supported the evidence. But, however, the trial Court found that the agreement is not enforceable and consequently the plaintiffs have no title. Before appreciating the rival contentions, it is useful to know that the first plaintiff was the original owner of the house. It was under an exchange, the house was given to the defendants and the plaintiffs got one acre of land. It was also noticed that the said land which was given to the plaintiffs was sold in auction by the Government. Therefore, it is quite clear that under the exchange deed the first plaintiff lost his house and did not gain the agricultural land. Consequently, the issue is said to have been raised by the lower appellate Court and accepted in view of mutation in June, 1976 under Ex.A-10. Therefore, as the matter stands the plaintiffs got into possession of the property again lawfully and at the instance of the mutation, they have been in continuous possession of the property. There was a long possession prior to the filing of the suit. When the plaintiffs have entered into the possession of the property, they are entitled to protect from the interference even by the legal owner. The remedy of the owner is only to institute a suit for recovery of possession. This being a suit for injunction, it is not very much necessary for the trial Court to have gone into the question of title. Basically, the right of the plaintiffs to the schedule property consequence on the breach of the arrangement under the exchange deed cannot be denied. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the possession of the plaintiffs has to be protected even if the title was not validly conveyed under Ex.A-10 and the remedy of the defendants is only to seek recovery of possession of the property, if advised. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court and accordingly the Second Appeal is dismissed. _________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 25th September, 2012 GHN