THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.298 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Bathula Guravaiah, the deceased-1st appellant herein filed O.S.No.371 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Badvel against the deceased-1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.5.17 cents of land in Survey No172 of Rekalakuntla Village, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa Dsitrict. It was pleaded that about half of the land was purchased by him under a sale deed, dated 24.12.1943 from one Mr.Gurulingam and that the remaining part of the land was purchased through a oral transaction from the legal representatives of one Mr.Chinna Nagaiah. He has mentioned the manner of possession over the property. The respondents on the other hand pleaded that the property in Survey No.172 was divided among the original owners viz., Bode Chinna Nagaiah and his sister-in-law Bode Polamma and that the share of Polamma was purchased by the 1st appellant, after it has changed hands. As regards the share of Chinna Nagaiah, they stated that after his death, his wife Obulamma was enjoying the property and since they were issueless, her brother Bodika Pitchaiah and Musalaiah had succeeded to the same. The 1st respondent is said to be the son of Musalaiah and the 2nd respondent is said to be the son of China Obaiah, another son of Musalaiah. They have also sated that in recognition of their rights, they have been issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of Ac.2.59 cents of land in that survey number. They have also raised an objection as to the non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court partly decreed the suit, through judgment dated 14.02.2002 in respect of the land covered by Ex.A.1 i.e. Ac.2.58 cents. As regards the balance the suit was dismissed. The appellant filed A.S.No.7 of 2002 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajamet at Badvel feeling aggrieved by the denial of relief as regards Ac.2.59 cents. The appeal was dismissed on 02.03.2006. Hence, this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent died and their legal representatives were brought on record. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The trial Court framed two issues viz., (i) whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? and (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.29 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were filed. In A.s.No.7 of 2002, the lower appellate Court framed two points for its consideration viz., (i) whether the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule as on the date of the suit? and (ii) whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is sustainable?. The appeal was dismissed. The relief was claimed in respect of Ac.5.17 cents of land. However, the source, through which the appellant claimed rights, is not the same in respect of the entire land. Half of it was said to have been purchased under Ex.A.1. As regards the remaining half, it was pleaded that Gurulingam went in adoption to the family of Obulamma W/o. Chinna Nagaiah. However, the evidence in that behalf was scanty. Unless the plea of adoption of Gurulingam to the family of Obulamma was established, there was no way that the appellants could have claimed rights vis-à-vis the remaining extent. Further, the plea of oral sale is so weak, that even in the absence of proper resistance from the opposite side, the Court would be slow to accept it. It may be true that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents was mostly about the title in respect of the remaining land of Ac.2.59 cents. Not much was said about possession. All the same, when the very right pleaded by the appellant is shaky, the necessity to verify their possession over the property does not arise. The changes, if any, in the revenue records, in view of the administrative appeals preferred by the parties do not have any impact upon the possession over the property. The appellants are not able to show as to how they assumed possession of the property and how they are enjoying it. In the teeth of serious controversy as to the very title and basis, the appellants have to work out their remedies by filing a suit for declaration. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the appellants to work out their remedies by filing a suit for declaration of title and ancilliary reliefs. It is made clear that none of the observations made by the trial Court or the lower appellate Court upon the title to the property shall be treated as final. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 20.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.298 of 2006 Date: 20.12.2011 JSU