THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.46 of 2006 Dated: 26th February, 2010 Between: Bandi Sudershan and another …Appellants AND Jogu Narsimulu, …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.46 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Subject matter of litigation herein is Ac.0.22 guntas of land in S.No.109/4 and Ac.1.00 of land in S.No.110/4 of Anukunta village and Mandal. The plaintiffs 1 and 2/appellants herein filed the suit in the lower Court originally for permanent injunction in respect of the said lands, and subsequently got the plaint amended and sought for recovery of possession of the said lands from the defendant/respondent herein. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers. The defendant originally owned Ac.24-22 cents in S.No.109. The 1st plaintiff is stated to have purchased Ac.3-00 of land from the defendant in the year 2003 under a registered sale deed. The 2nd plaintiff claims Ac.5-13 guntas of land in S.No.110. The suit lands are stated to be in between land of the 1st plaintiff and land of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs did not file any schedule with boundaries of the suit lands. The plaintiffs filed plaint plan along with plaint demarcating the disputed portion in red colour. The 1st plaintiff is stated to have purchased another extent of land from the defendant. In the trial Court, the 1st plaintiff alone examined himself as P.W-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 copies of Pahanis and Exs.A-7 and A-8 pattadar pass books standing in the names of both the plaintiffs. The defendant examined himself as D.W-1 and examined D.W-2 on his behalf. He did not file any documents in his favour. The trial Court (Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad) in the suit O.S. No.76 of 2001 granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for possession of the suit land basing on admission of the defendant that he sold entire land of Ac.24-22 guntas belonging to him in S.No.109. In appeal A.S. No.1 of 2005 filed by the defendant in the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad, the appellate Court set aside decree of the trial Court. 2) It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that when the defendant had admitted in his evidence as D.W-1 that he sold away his entire land of Ac.24-22 guntas, then the defendant cannot have any land in the suit locality and in between lands belonging to the plaintiffs 1 and 2. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent’s counsel that the 1st plaintiff as P.W-1 admitted in cross-examination that western boundary for his land in the registered sale deed is mentioned as land belonging to the defendant. It is astonishing to note that the plaintiffs did not file registered documents under which they have purchased their lands. In a suit for possession of the suit lands based on title, minimum requirement is filing of title deeds under which the plaintiffs got title for their lands. It is evident that the plaintiffs did not file their registered sale deeds with a view to suppress certain contents therein, which may go against their case. When the plaintiffs did not file their title deeds, it is not known why the defendant did not file registration extracts of those sale deeds in the trial Court. At any rate, the plaintiffs are not going to get a decree in a suit on the basis of demerits or infirmities in the defendant’s case. The plaintiff in a suit for possession has to stand or fall on merits of his own case and on merits of crucial documents to be produced by him. Not only the plaintiff failed to produce his title deeds, the plaintiffs though sought for appointment of commissioner in the trial Court and got an Advocate Commissioner appointed, did not co-operate with the Commissioner who ultimately returned warrant of commission due to non cooperation. Even before the commissioner, the plaintiffs did not file their registration documents or copies thereof. 3) In the appellate Court, some exercise was done by way of appointing another commissioner for localizing the lands. As per the commissioner’s report, the 1st plaintiff is in possession of Ac.3-03 guntas of land, the 2nd plaintiff is in possession of Ac.5-08 guntas of land and the defendant is in possession of Ac.1-25 guntas of land. What the 1st plaintiff purchased from the defendant in the year 1993 under registered sale deed is Ac.3-00 of land in S.No.109. Thus, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are in possession of the extents of land to which they are entitled to. Even though the 2nd plaintiff is found to be in possession of less than marginal extent of Ac.0.05 guntas of land, the 1st plaintiff is found to be in possession of excess land of Ac.0.03 guntas as per Commissioner’s report. Thus, the lower appellate Court considered entire oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly reversed judgment passed by the trial Court. In this appeal I do not find any merits both on facts as well as in law. 4) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 26, 2010 KSH