IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: GUNTAKAL
Present: Smt.G. Manjula,
Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntakal
Friday, the 20 th day of June, 2025
Original Suit No.80 of 2017
Between:
Y. Chandraskhar Reddy S/o Late Y. Nagi Reddy, Hindu, aged 54 years, Cultivation, R/o Kadiripalli Village, Hamlet of Nagasamudram, Guntakal Mandal.
.…Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sugali Mallesu Naik S/o Sugali Vacha Ramudu Naik, Hindu, aged about 47 years, Cultivation, R/o Kadiripalli Village, Guntakal Mandal.
2. Sugali Sankara Naik S/o Sugali Vacha Ramudu Naik, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Cultivation, R/o Kadiripalli Village, Guntakal Mandal.
....Defendants
This suit is coming on 07.05.2025 for arguments before me in the presence of
Sri G. Lakshmipathy, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N. Gadilingappa, advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title over the suit schedule land, as the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the same and for possession of suit schedule land which is shown as ABCD in the plaint plan and for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the lawful and absolute owner of the suit schedule property situated in Sy.No.37 of Nagasamudram Village fields of Guntakal Mandal to an extent of Ac.5.88 cents. Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to one Y. Voosi Reddy, who is the senior paternal uncle of the plaintiff and he was unmarried and not having family. Out of love and affection, the said Voosi Reddy had bequeathed the suit schedule property and other properties to the plaintiff by executing a registered gift deed, dt.14.06.1968 under document
No.980 of 1968, when the plaintiff was a minor out of his own free will he conferred the absolute rights to the plaintiff and delivered the possession on the same day to the guardian of the minor. Ever since, the date of gift, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in his own right to the knowledge of one and all including the defendants. The original registration of gift deed, dt.14.06.1968 executed by the said Voosi Reddy has been lost and it is beyond its recovery. Hence, the plaintiff obtained the registration extract from the Sub
Registrar office. Further the Revenue authorities issued pattadar and title deed passbooks in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule land and the same has been mutated in the name of plaintiff in all the Revenue records. 1-B register and adangal / pahanis maintained by the Revenue authorities also reflect the title and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
3.Further averred in the plaint that, prevesiously the plaintiff filed the
OS.No.53/2015 on the file of this Court against the defendants for declaration and
permanent injunction and the defendants contested the same. During proceedings of the said suit, the plaintiff has noticed that the defendants have encroached into the suit schedule land to an extent of Ac.1.03 cents and after encroachment, the land of plaintiff is measuring Ac.4.85 cents instead of Ac.5.88 cents. The defendants encroached into the suit land with a malafied intention and when questioned, they are acting high handedly. The plaintiff having came to know about the illegal occupation of the said extent, filed IA.No.13 of 2017 in OS.No.53 of 2015 for withdrawal of the suit and to institute a fresh suit for declaration and for recovery of encroached portion and for other reliefs. Thus, the plaintiff had acquired the perfect title to the suit schedule property.
4.Further averred in the plaint that the defendants are the brothers and they belongs to ST community and they are having land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of total extent of Ac.13.33 cents in the suit Sy.No.37. The defendants purchased the said land from B. Manikyam Prabhu of Dancherla Village with specific boundaries and in the said sale deed of the defendants, the eastern boundary is shown as that of plaintiff. Thus, the defendants have right and title only to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of total extent of Ac.13.33 cents and whereas the plaintiff has got right and title to an extent of Ac.5.88 cents in the suit survey No.37 and the remaining land of Ac.4.45 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the sister of the plaintiff by name
Ananthamma, which is to the west of the defendants’ land of Ac.3.00 cents. The defendants without any manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule land, planned to occupy the sale which is adjacent to their land. During summer, in the absence of plaintiff, the defendants have high handedly ploughed a portion of the suit schedule land, adjoining their land, when the plaintiff chastised the defendants for their acts and they apologized and promised not to repeat the same. But, the defendants have planned to encroach into the suit schedule land and the same is came to know plaintiff and applied to the survey authorities to survey the lands and to fix boundaries by planting stones. But, the defendants have not accepted for the same and the defendants also threatened to implicate plaintiff in SC and ST case.
The plaintiff is a law abiding citizen and hence he filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. Hence, the suit.
5. The defendants filed their written statement by denying all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and contended that the defendants belong to ST community and they are the brothers and owners of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Nagasamudram Village in Sy.No.37 purchased under survey number with specific boundaries stated under its schedule from one Manikyam Prabhu of
Dancherla Village, who purchased the said land in which he conveyed to the defendants earlier from a close relative of the plaintiff and the said sale transaction is well aware by the plaintiff. Even earlier by the date of purchase of Ac.3.00 cents by the said Manikya Prabhu, the said land had with specific boundaries on two sides of their land on east and west separating with ridge and boundaries besides neem trees, peg marks with stone.
6.Further, the defendants stated that their predecessors in title have been in continuous physical possession and enjoyment of the land situated within said ridge and bund irrespective of the extent and the said ridge is neither disturbed nor builds in recent times. The plaintiff is fully aware of the enjoyment of the land within specific boundaries according to their sale deeds and within the rdige by the defendants and their predecessors in title. When the plaintiff has got electric supply to his bore well from DC, he supervised in person and pursue the electric poles planted and one of such poles was planted exactly in and over the ridge which is dividing the suit schedule land and defendants’ land with an intention to avoid future complication.
When the land was conveyed to Manikya Prabhu by his vendor, it was not measured or surveyed and the said sale transaction is well aware of the plaintiff. Further, the defendants and their predecessors in title by their peaceful and open enjoyment of the land for nearly 20 years without any obstruction or inte4rference from anybody including the plaintiff at any point of time and their right and enjoyment of the same more than 20 years and perfected their right and title to their land which is in their possession with specific boundaries by adverse possession in the eye of law.
7. Further stated by the defendants that to the western side of the defendants land, the land of Mallikarjuna Reddy and Virupaksha Reddy, who are related to the plaintiff is situated and it is in Sy.No.37. The said land which on western side of the defendants land is in poor quality in nature. The plaintiff by filing a suit with false allegations has planned to drive the defendants to further on the western side and to occupy the defendants land which is superior in quality. After purchasing the land by the defendants, improved the quality of land and fertility by removing huge boulders by spending huge amount with machinery and also removed huge stones on the southern side of their Nallagutta hillock area and extended their land further towards southern side and cultivating the same. The defendants are not aware of the extent of land in possession by the plaintiff. But, the land of the plaintiff and defendants are separated by a ridge and cultivating and enjoying the lands upto their ridge or bund without reference to the extent.
8.The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.No.53 of 2015 on the file of this Court against the defendants with frivolous pleadings and after commencement of trial and after completion of cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and the plaintiff has filed a petition to seek permission to withdraw and to file a fresh suit. The defendants have strongly objected the same by filing their counter. It is just invented to put up a false plea and to create a cause of action to file a fresh suit stating that after commencement of trial, the defendants have encroached into the suit schedule land to an extent of Ac.1.03 cents and when they questioned they are acting high handedly and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Further the defendant are also having separate pattadar passbooks, title deed books and 1-B extract, adangals for their Ac.3.00 cents and after division of said equally and it is also well aware of the same. The suit for declaration of title is not maintainable in law and the Court Fee paid is not correct according to the prayer of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9.In view of the rival contentions, the following issues are settled for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule property, as prayed for ?
2.Whether the plaintiff entitled for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property against the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of over the suit schedule property, as prayed for ?
3. To what relief?
10.In the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A5 through PW1 and the advocate commissioner is examined PW2 and and Exs.C1 to C5 are marked through PW2. On the other hand, the defendants got examined DWs1 to 5 and also got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.
11. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
The plaintiff filed written arguments and submitted that the plaintiff has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants have encroached into the suit land an extent of Ac.0-92 cents and he is entitled for the relief claimed. The defendants have a vain attempt to show that they are in enjoyment of their land as per the boundaries without reference to the extent noted in the document. But they have failed in their attempt and they could not prove that they are in possession of the land as per the boundaries. The above suit is relating to encroachment made by the defendants hence leading of oral evidence will be of no use and it will be a futile exercise. The local inspection of the suit property is the only way to prove the case.
12. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
The defendant filed written arguments and argued that there are absolutely no reason to disbelieve or discredit the consistment evidence of Dws.1 to 6 and more so when their evidence is consistent and in conformity with the evidence and report of the advocate commissioner Exs C1 and C4. It is common knowledge that there will be ridges in between the lands of two persons to indicate separation of one land from the other. May be the land of plaintiff is lesser in extent than the extent mentioned in the gift deed, it does not mean that plaintiff has to get back the said land. It is the law that if plaintiff has to get back the said land, It is the law that if plaintiff fails to prove his possession of land within 12 years, his right is lost and the person who is in peaceful, continuous and open possession of the land to the knowledge of one and all perfects his title under the doctrine of Adverse possession. Same is governed by
Art 64 and-65 of Limatation Act. Since the suit is for Declaration of Title burden is on the plaintiff to prove by positive evidence that he has title and right over A. 1-08 cents in Sy No.37 for which suit is filed and said land was in his possession and enjoyment within the period of limitation Art 64 of Limitation Act. In suit for Declaration of Title plaintiff has to stand and rely on the evidence let in by hum and he cannot succeed on the weakness of defendants evidence or if the defendant fails to prove the case pleaded and set up by him and relied the Hon’ble supreme Court Judgemnt in
Nadendla Kotamma and others Vs.Nadendla Mallaiah ( died ) and another in2014 (6)
ALD 48
13.The counsel for defendant relied the Hom’ble Supreme court Judgments that
Sec. 34 of specific relief Act-Suit for Declaration of title plantiff to prove case by adducing sufficient evidence - He cannot wonwektes of Defendants Case. Entries revenue records will not create title plantiff has to show Title dependent of those entries in :union of Inida Vs.Vasavi Corporation Socirty and others 2014 (2) ALD 157 SC, Plaintiff as succeed basing on the strength and weakness of his case court eet gros decree based on latches on the evidence of Defendant 3046ALD 48 14.ISSUE No.1
On perusal of the material part of the recordss, it discloses that the plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and pleaded that he is the lawful and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which is in survey
No.37 in an extent of Ac.5-88 cents and this land originally belongs to the senior paternal uncle of the plaintiff by name Y.Voosi Reddy. The said Y.Voosi Reddy had gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff when he was minor out of love and affection by executing a registered gift deed, dated 14.06.1968, vide Document
No.980 of 1968 under Ex. A1 and possession over the suit property was delivered on same day to the Guardian of the plaintiff.
15. The plaintiff further submits that the suit land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in all the record of rights of revenue department of Guntakal Mandal. The and he was issued Pattadar and title deed pass books and the plaintiff acquired perfect title the suit property and filed Adangal extract of the suit schedule land, dt.04.08.2017 under Ex.A2 and 1-B register extract of the suit schedule land, dt.04.08.2017 under Ex.A3. Ever since the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in his own right to the knowledge of every one including the defendants. In order to prove his contention he examined as PW1 and
Exs. A1 to A3 got marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the said registered gift deed as the criginal was lost by him, Ex.A2 is the Adangal extract of the suit schedule land, dt.04.08.2017 under and 1-B register extract of the suit schedule land, dt.04.08.2017 under Ex.A3.
16.Previsiously, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.53/2015 on the file of this court for permanent injunction restraining them the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the defendants have contested the said suit and during trial in the said suit the plaintiff has noticed that the defendants have encroached into an extent of Ac.1-03 cents.. After encroachment by them the plaintiff's suit land is measuring only Ac.4-96 cents instead of Ac.5-88 cents.
The plaintiff having come to know about the illegal occupation of the said extent, has filed I.A.No. 13/2017 in the above said suit in O.S.No. 53/2015 for withdrawal of the suit and institute a fresh suit for declaration and for recovery of the encroached portion. Then, this court was allowed the I.A.No.13/2017 on 16.03.2017 and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the said suit and file a fresh suit. In order prove the same he was examined as PW1 and reteireted averments made in the plaint and Ex:
A4 is the certified copies of petition, affidavit and orders there on in IA.No.13/17 in
OS.No.53/2015, dt.16.03.2017 and Ex.A5 is the certified copy of judgment passed on
16.03.2017 is OS.No.53 of 2015. In view of the same, the plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of title and consequential permanent injuction.
17.During the proceedings of this present suit, the plaintiff has filed a petition
Under Order 26, Rule 9 C.P.C in I.A.No.80/2019 for appointment of an Advocate-
Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and survey the same with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and the same was allowed. The Advocate-
Commissioner was appointedby this Cour and he visited the plaint schedule property and inspected the same in the presence of both parties and their respective counsels.
Further, as per the work memos given by both parties, he measured the suit land with the help of mandal surveyor and identifies that the extent of Ac.0-92 cents was found encroached into the suit land of the plaintiff. The Advocate-Commissioner submitted his report under Ex. C1 and after identifying the same, the Municipal Town surveyor prepared the Field measurement sketch of those lands under Ex.C2 and issued a certificate of land survey by the Mandal Surveyor under Ex.C3. The
Advocate commissioner prapared a rough sketch under Ex.C4.
18.Further, the Advocate commissioner examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that the Mandal Surveyor has located the boundary stones for the suit survey No.37 thereafter measured the land and he deposed that there is an encroachment of ac.0- 92 cents into the suit land and the land of the plaintiff measured Ac.4-96 cents as against Ac.5-88 cents and as such the extent of encroachment is Ac.0-92 cents and
Exs C1 to C5 got marked. Basing on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner the exact encroachment is Ac.0-92 cents only. And then the plaintiff filed 1.A.no.83/2020 for amendment of extent of the encroachment by the defendants and this court was allowed I.A.No.83/2020 on 18.03.2021 and the amendment of the same was carried out in the plaint. Further, submitted that the plaintiff has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants have encroached into the suit land an extent of Ac.0-92 cents and he is entitled for the relief claimed.
19. On the other hand, the defendants in thier defense contended that defendants
No.1 and 2 are the brothers and owners of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Nagasamudram Village in Sy.No.37 to the Extent of Acrs.3.00 cents purchased from Manikyam Prabhu of Dancherla Village vide Doc.No. 884/2001 under Ex.B1 who purchased the said land in the year 2000 vide Doc.No. 297/2000 under Ex.B2 in which he conveyed to the defendants earlier from a close relative of the plaintiff and the said sale transaction is well aware by the plaintiff. Further the defendant are also having separate pattadar passbooks, title deed books under
Exs.B3 and B4, and 1-B extract, adangals for their Ac.3.00 cents and after division of said equally and it is also well aware of the same. Even earlier by the date of purchase of Ac.3.00 cents by the said Manikya Prabhu, the said land had with specific boundaries on two sides of their land on east and west separating with ridge and boundaries besides neem trees, peg marks with stone. In order to prove the defendants themselves examined as DW1 and DW2 and Exs. B1 to B4 got marked on their behalf. Ex.B1 is the registered sale deed executed in favour of B. Manikya
Prabhu vide document No.297/2000 registered before SRO, Guntakal., Ex.B2 is the registered sale deed executed in favour of defendants vide document No.884/2001 registered before SRO, Guntakal, Ex.B3 is the Title deed book with Khatha No.1807 issued in the name of D1 issued by MRO, Guntakal and Ex.B4 is the Title deed book with Khatha No.1811 issued in the name of D2 ssued by MRO, Guntakal.
20.Further, the defendants contented that they and their predecessors in title have been in continuous physical possession and enjoyment of the land since 20 years situated within said ridge and bund irrespective of the extent and the said ridge is neither disturbed nor builds in recent times. In order to prove the same they examined Manikya Prabhu, as DW5, who was vendor of the defendants property under Ex.B2 and he deposed that he purchased said land from one Yarasi
Pullamma under Ex.B1 and also deposed that he sold the said land with reference to old ridges found on eastern and western side in seperating with huge bunds, boulders besides ne is elicited except putting suggestions by the counsel for the plaintiff.
21.Further,the defendants are contended that the plaintiff is fully aware of the enjoyment of the land within specific boundaries according to their sale deeds and within the rdige by the defendants and their predecessors in title. Further, when the plaintiff has got electric supply to his bore well from DC, he supervised in person and pursue the electric poles planted and one of such poles . Ex.B5 is the Photographs of said pole. In orderto prove his contention he examined their neighbouring land owner by name T.Sreenivasulu as DW3 and he deposed that defendants purchased the land from Manikya Prabhu about 20 years back and he was present at the time of transaction when defendants purchased land and also deposed that there was ridges on either side of thier land is in existenting long prior to purchase of thier land and in cross examination nothing is elicited expect putting suggestions by the plaintiff’s counsel. In cross examination it was elicited that he did not filed his land ownership documents before this court.
22.Further, stated that they improved the quality of land and fertility by removing huge boulders by spending huge amount with machinery and also removed huge stones on the southern side of their Nallagutta hillock area and extended their land further towards southern side and cultivating thby namee same. In order to prove the same he examined DW4 , who is the the tractor owner and he deposed that his tractor was engaged by reving huge boulders in hillock area.in the cross examination it was elicited that he was not filed registered documents of his tractor except this nothing is elicited and Dw.6 is Swamy Naik and his evidence is almost on similar lines as that of athers Dws as the defendants are in peaceful and lawful possession of the land situated in between the two ridges on eastern side and western side.
23.Further, the defendants contended that he and their predecessors in title by their peaceful and open enjoyment of the land for nearly 20 years without any obstruction or inte4rference from anybody including the plaintiff at any point of time and their right and enjoyment of the same more than 20 years and perfected their right and title to their land which is in their possession with specific boundaries by adverse possession in the eye of law.
24.On consideing the above aforeside facts and circumstances and material part on record, admittedtly, the suit survey No.37 of Nagasamudram village fields is totally admeasuring Ac.13-33 cents and out of the said total extent the plaintill has got right and title to the extent of Ac.5-88 cents., the defendants have got right to the extent of Ac.3-00 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.4-45 cents belong to the sister of the plaintiff by name Ananthamma which is adjoining land of the defendants on its western side. Further, the plaint schedule property which is in survey N o.37 in an extent of Ac.5-88 cents was gifted by plaintiff’s senior paternal uncle by name
Y.Voosi Reddy, when he was minor out of love and affection under Ex.A1.and the suit land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in all the record of rights of revenue department of Guntakal Mandal under Ex.A2 Adangal extract and Ex.A3 is the 1-B register extract. Further, the defendants are brothers belong to ST community and they are the owners of land in an extent of Ac.300 cents out of total extent of Ac.13-33 cents in survey No.37 and the defendants has purchased from Manikyam Prabhu of
Dancherla Village vide Doc.No. 884/2001 under Ex.B1 to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Nagasamudram and they are also having separate pattadar passbooks, title deed books under Exs.B3 and B4, and 1-B extract, adangals for their Ac.3.00 cents and after division of said equally. Therefore, plaintiff having title over the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.5.88 cents as per the recitals of A1 to A3 and defendants also not denied the title of the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence on record that plaintiff has taken possession under Ex.A2 1-B and Ex.A3 adangal of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.5-88 cents of land as per gift deed under Ex.
A1 and no evidence to show the measurements to the extent of Acrs.5.88 Cents in the recital Ex.A1 and also in the schedule of the plain. Therefore, there is no description and measuments to the extent of Ac.5.88 cents in the Ex.A1 and no boundaries and fencing is fixed to identify the physical features of the suit schedule property.
25. During the trail in O.S.No. 53/2015 the plaintiff has assertion that the defendant is in unauthorized possession of 1 acre of his land and after came to know about the illegal occupation of the said extent, has filed I.A.No. 13/2017 in the above said suit in O.S.No. 53/2015 for withdrawal of the suit and institute a fresh suit for declaration and for recovery of the encroached portion, but pleading of the plaintiff in the present suit is significantly silent about the alleged encroachment in the year 2016 and relief of recovery of possession. But, after measured the land by the the
Advocate - Commissioner Pw 2, with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor in the present suit in the year 2019 as per recitals under Ex.C1 to C4, it was noticed that plaintiff is not possessing . 5-88 cents and is short of 0-92 cents. Therefore, the plaintiff has explicitly admitted in the pleadings to being out of possession and report of the Advocate commissioner shows that Ac. 0.92 cents of the suit schedule property encroched by the defendant and he is title and possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to the extent of Ac.4-96 cents only.
26. On the other hand , the defendants contended that they and their predecessors in title have been in continuous physical possession and enjoyment of the land since 20 years situated within said ridge and bund irrespective of the extent and the said ridge is neither disturbed nor builds in recent times and in order to prove the same they were examined D3 to D6 by way of oral evidence to corrabarate the thier version. Further, stated that they are in possession of land to the extent of
Acrs 0.98 cents morethan 12 years and in peaceful, continuous and open possession of the land to the knowledge of one and all perfects his title under the doctrine of Adverse possession. However, the defendants they themsilves have no knowledge about encroachment of the land to the extent of Ac.0,92 cents and not placed on record sufficient evidence to show that his possession was hostile to the knowldege of the true owner,, exclusive and continuation of for 12 years. Therefore, mere long possession over the suit schedule property is not adverse possession and without fliling seperate claim for adverse possession can not get right over of the suit schedule property to the exttent of 0.92 cents .
27.On considering the above aforeside discussion this court came to conclusion that the plaintiff has owned Ac.5.88 cents agriculture land as per Ex.A1 to
A3, but he is in possession over the said land to extent of Ac.4.96 cents and dispossessed to the extent of Ac.0.92 cents by the encroachment of the defendants as per Ex. C1 to C4 the report of the PW2/ Advocate commissioner and admission made by the plaintiff in his pleadings. Ex.A1 to A3 discloses only total extent of
Ac.5.88 cents, but not disclosed specific description and measument of said extent.
Except, Pw1 and Pw2/ advocate commissioner no other independent witness examined on his behalf to show the physical possession and boundaries to the total extent of Ac.5.88 cents. Therefore, the plaintiff excluded possession to the extent of
Ac 0.98 cents in the suit schedule property and relied judgement refferred by the defendant in union of Inida Vs.Vasavi Corporation Socirty and others 2014 (2)
ALD 157 SC mere entries in the revenue records will not create title to the plantiff.
Thus, the plaintiff has to seek declaration to extent of Ac.0.98 cents.
28.According to proviso of Section 34 of the Specific relief Act, “the
court shall not make not make any such declaration where plaintiff , being able
to seek further relief than mere declaration, omits to do so”.
In view of the above afroside provison of law, the declaratory relief can be granted only if the plaintiff is in possession of the property. When the plaintiff is not in possession, he must necessarily seek the additional relief of ‘recovery of possession’. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to seek recovery of possession, and has only sought declaration and permanent injection. Further, in the previous suit also this court has given an oppurtunity to file fresh suit for declaration and recovery of possession for the encrochment as he is not in possession. Despite this, he sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction , excluding the relief of recovery of possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs P.
Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2033, it was held that the legal principle that a litigant must explicitly pray for the reliefs they are entitled to, and if the circumstances of the case change, they must amend their pleadings accordingly.
Failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of the suit, as the court is constrained to adjudicate only upon the issues and reliefs formally presented in the pleadings.
Ultimately, because the plaintiffs did not seek the necessary relief of declaration of title despite the existing dispute, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the suit. In the light of the aforeside judgment, the court cannot grant the relief of recovery of possession because the plaintiff has not prayed for it in the pleadings, because the plaintiff, despite being aware of their dispossession, did not seek the essential and mandatory relief of recovery of possession. Moreover, as per established law and judicial interpretation in
Venkataraja Vs. Vidyane Doureradjane , AIR 2014 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that if the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, and seeks declaration of title , without seeking possession , the suiit is not maintenable. Therefore, mere declaration is not sufficient in the absence of possession and the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable for want of consequential relief. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiff accordingly.
29.ISSUE No.2
In view of the findings of the issue no.1, the plaintiff excluded possession over the suit schedule property to the extent of Ac. 0.92 cents before filing of the suit and he is not in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. Therefore, without lawful possession over the whole extent of Ac.5.88 cents of the suit scedule property he can not get relief of permenent injuction to restrain the defendants to interifier peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land as they already encroched to the extent of Ac. 0.92 cents. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.
30. Issues No.3
In view of above discussion and findings in Issues No.1 and 2, the Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.
31.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of June, 2025.
Sd/- G.Manjula
Civil Judge(Junior Division)
Guntakal
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff: Defendant:
PW1: Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy DW1: Sankar Naik.
PW2: B. Satynarayana, advocate commissioner DW2: S. Mallesh Naik. DW3: T. Sreenivasulu. DW4 : D. Adinarayana. DW5 : Manikya Prabhu.
Exhibits marked for plaintiff
Ex.A1 : Certified registration extract of gift deed executed by Y. Voosi Reddy Alias Voosenna in favour of plaintiff on 14.06.1968. Ex.A2 : Adangal extract of the suit schedule land, dt.04.08.2017. Ex.A3 : 1-B register extract of the suit schedule land, dt.04.08.2017. Ex.A4 : certified copies of petition, affidavit and orders there on in
IA.No.13/17 in OS.No.53/2015, dt.16.03.2017.
Ex.A5 : certified copy of judgment passed on 16.03.2017 is OS.No.53 of 2015. Ex.C1 : Report of the advocate commissioner. Ex.C2 : Rough plan issued by Mandal Surveyor, Guntakal. Ex.C3 : Report of Mandal Surveyor along with Ex.C2. Ex.C4 : Rough plan prepared by PW2. Ex.C5 : Commissioner warrant issued by the Court.
Exhibits marked for defendants
Ex.B1 : Dt.01.03.2000 registered sale deed executed in favour of B. Manikya Prabhu vide document No.297/2000 registered before SRO, Guntakal. Ex.B2 : Dt.29.05.2001 registered sale deed executed in favour of defendants vide document No.884/2001 registered before SRO, Guntakal. Ex.B3: Title deed book with Khatha No.1807 issued in the name of D1 issued by MRO, Guntakal. Ex.B4: Title deed book with Khatha No.1811 issued in the name of D2 issued by MRO, Guntakal. Ex.B5 : Positive photographs with CD.
Sd/- G.Manjula
Civil Judge(Jr. Division)
GTL