THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL Nos.638, 639, 640 and 641 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: These four second appeals arise out of two suits, namely O.S.Nos.34 and 38 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally. The brief facts that gave rise to the filing of the second appeals are as under: O.S.No.34 of 1990 was filed by Bonthu Venkaiah, the appellant in Second Appeal Nos.638 and 640 of 2005, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.1.34 guntas of land in Survey No.110/E of Ayyagaripeta Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. He stated that he is the pattadar of Acs.3.38 guntas of land and after he sold away part of the land in the said survey number, he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.34 guntas. According to him, the defendants in the suit, who are the owners of the neighbouring land, are trying to interfere with his possession. The defendants therein pleaded that the plaintiff did not trace his title and as a matter of fact, the suit schedule property is part of the land in Survey No.110/A, owned by Smt.S.Suseela Devi. Smt.S.Suseela Devi, in turn, filed O.S.No.38 of 1990 against S.S.Mohan Rao, Bonthu Rajaiah and Bonthu Venkaiah for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.11.00 of land in Survey No.110/A. According to her, the said land has fallen to her share in a partition that has taken place between herself and her adopted son. The manner in which she has enjoyed the right of possession was also mentioned. Defendant No.2 therein filed a counter claim for the relief of injunction in respect of Acs.3.04 guntas of land. The trial Court decreed O.S.No.34 of 1990 through judgment, dated 17.08.1998. Through another judgment of the same day, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.38 of 1990 and allowed the counter-claim. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.34 of 1990 filed A.S.No.9 of 1998 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally feeling aggrieved by the decree. Similarly, Smt.S.Suseela Devi, who figured as defendant No.4 in that suit, filed A.S.No.8 of 1998 in the same Court. She filed two separate appeals, namely A.S.Nos.10 and 11 of 1998 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally against the dismissal of O.S.No.38 of 1990 and the decree passed in the counter-claim therein. Through separate judgments, dated 06.04.2005, the lower appellate Court allowed all the appeals. Hence, these four appeals by the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1990 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.38 of 1990. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Both the suits that gave rise to the filing of the second appeals were filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. Naturally, the trial Court framed only one issue, namely “whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction”. In O.S.No.34 of 1990, the plaintiff therein examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the defendants therein, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to 19 were filed. ‘A’ series comprised most of revenue receipts, whereas in ‘B’ series, a bunch of sale deeds executed by defendant No.4 therein were filed. In O.S.No.38 of 1990, the plaintiff therein examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and filed Exs.A1 to A17. The defendants therein deposed as D.Ws.1 and 2 and filed Exs.B1 to B16. The documentary evidence was nothing but a true replica of the one filed in O.S.No.34 of 1990. In the appeals that were filed before the lower appellate Court, only one point was framed in each of the appeals, and all of them were allowed. The main controversy was as to whether the suit schedule property in O.S.No.34 of 1990 formed part of Acs.11.00 of land, which is the schedule property in O.S.No.38 of 1990. Another question was as to whether the land in respect of which the counter-claim was presented forms part of the said plot of Acs.11.00. The evidence on record clearly established that Smt.S.Suseela Devi is the absolute owner of Acs.11.00 of land in Survey No.110/A, since it has fallen to her share in a family partition. It appears that the land in Survey No.110 is very vast in extent and various sub-divisions existed. The appellants herein, who are the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1990 and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.38 of 1990; laid claim to part of the land in Survey No.110. However, they were not able to trace their title. Though in a suit for injunction it is not necessary either for the plaintiff or the defendant to establish title, it certainly becomes relevant to know the nature of rights exercised by them. An outright trespasser, who does not have any title or right over the land, cannot seek the relief of injunction against the true owner. In the instant case, reference to title became necessary, since the person, against whom the relief of injunction was claimed, be it by filing a suit or through a counter-claim, was an absolute owner, to whom it accrued through ancestors in a family partition. Injunction could have been granted against her, if only the persons claiming that relief, had a better source of right. In this regard, the appellants miserably failed to prove their right vis- à-vis the property claimed by them. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in these second appeals. The second appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.12.2011. kdl