HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA SECOND APPEAL No.134 of 2009 DATE:09.03.2010 Between: Krishna Reddy and another … Appellants and Smt. Kapa Padmamma and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA SECOND APPEAL No.134 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.69 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Gadwal, are the appellants herein. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.6-27 guntas in Sy.No.426 of Peddadoddi Village, H/o Maldakal Limits. Her husband by name Nagireddy is the only son of Bodabanda Hanumanth Reddy and they both died about one and a half decade ago, as such she succeeded to the said property. The defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property. While so, on 24.06.2002 while she was engaged in the agricultural operations and ploughing the suit schedule land, the defendants with their servants and henchmen without any right whatsoever, trespassed into the property and tried to dispossess her, but she resisted their illegal acts with the help of her relatives and the villagers. Then, the defendants went away threatening that they would come again and dispossess her from the suit schedule property. Hence, she filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte. Defendants 3 and 4 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contending that one Ramireddy, who is grand-father of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4, was the owner of the suit schedule property and the said property fell to their share in an oral partition. Being illiterates, they were not aware of the survey number and the extent, but they have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as per the oral partition. Out of the total extent of Acs.6-27 guntas, their father sold an extent of Acs.2-00 to defendants 1 and 2, who have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase. Late Nagireddy was the original owner of the suit schedule property along with other properties. After his demise, his sons Rami Reddy and Laxmi Reddy became owners. The name of Laxmi Reddy, son of Bodabanda Pedda Hanmanthu Reddy, being the kartha of the family, is mentioned as ‘assaidar’ in the khasra pahani and the names of his younger brothers namely Narsi Reddy and Nagi Reddy (father of defendants 3 and 4) are mentioned as ‘sikmidars’. Their father and father-in-law of the plaintiff divided the properties as per the oral settlement. 4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.14 were marked. On behalf of contesting defendants 3 and 4, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. On a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit, by judgment dated 28.03.2006. Challenging the same, defendants 3 and 4 filed an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. The said appeal was dismissed on 01.12.2008. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 3 and 4 preferred this second appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants 3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for defendants 3 and 4 is that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 and it fell to the share of defendants 3 and 4 in oral partition. In my considered view, the said contention cannot be countenanced in this second appeal, because it should be remembered that it is a suit for injunction simpli citar, and in a suit of this nature, title cannot be declared by the courts. In an injunction suit, the relevant requirement is as to who is in possession of land in question as on the date of institution of the suit and that aspect was already gone into by the trial court and rightly concluded that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, and accordingly, decreed the suit, and the said finding was confirmed by the lower appellate court. If defendants 3 and 4 have any grievance with regard to title, in my considered view, they cannot canvass about the same in the second appeal and their remedy is elsewhere. Therefore, I see no merits in the second appeal to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the courts below, and accordingly, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date: 09.03.2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA SECOND APPEAL No.134 of 2009 (Dismissed) 9th March, 2010 CBS