HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.183 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.308 of 1987 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of 35 Ankanams of land (one ankanam is equivalent to 8 square yards) in survey No.1955 of Nellore Bit-I Revenue village. It is stated that the property was owned by Smt.Bezawada Lakshmi Kanthamma and that her son and GPA holder B. Ravindranath executed an agreement of sale in respect of the property on 20-09-1983 in favour of the appellant. Ever since then, the appellant is said to be in possession of the property. He complained that the defendant started interfering with the possession. 2. The defendant filed a written statement. It is stated that 22 ankanams of the suit schedule property was purchased by him from one Mr. Nityanand on 09-04-1983 and 10 ankanams from Ravindranath on 26-02-1983. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 19-11-2001. The respondent filed A.S. No.10 of 2002 in the Court of the District Judge, Nellore. The appeal was allowed on 01-09-2003. Hence, this Second Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The appellant, on the one hand and the respondent on the other, based their claim to the suit schedule property under agreements of sale. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: “1) Whether the agreement of sale, dt.20.9.83 is a true and genuine document? 2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit property since 20.9.83 till the date of suit? 3) Whether the defendant acquired possession of suit property by virtue of two agreements of sale, dt.9.4.83 and dt.15.6.83? 4) Whether the description of the property of plaint schedule is incorrect? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?” 6. To prove his case, the appellant examined PWs.1 to 3 and filed Ex.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the respondent, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were filed. 7. The suit was decreed. In the appeal, preferred by the respondent herein, the lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., the appellant herein is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. The appeal was allowed. 8. Though neither the appellant nor the respondent have any clear title to the suit schedule property, that would not disable the Court from entertaining the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction. Even in the absence of any perfect title, the party can maintain the suit for injunction in case he is able to establish the possession to the satisfaction of the Court. Further, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove his possession and he cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant. In the instant case, the appellant did not file any documentary evidence to prove his possession. The documentary evidence comprised of Ex.A-1 the agreement of sale and Ex.A-2 the extract of the accounts book. He was said to have been employed as an Accounts Officer with none other than his vendor. Both the documents are hardly of any use for deciding the question of possession. 9. The oral evidence consists of depositions of the appellant are naturally cannot be taken into account. The other two witnesses PWs.2 and 3 are none other than the father –in-law and son - in – law of the appellant. They two are interested in the appellant and no value can be attached to their evidence. The lower appellate Court took note of these aspects and held that the appellant is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. 10. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 18, 2011. KTL