Telangana High Court
T.Muttamma vs G.Pentaiah on 15 March, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.657 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 in O.S.No.1211 of 2004 passed by the learned I - Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.1211 of 2004 was filed by the appellants against the respondents for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, plaintiffs in the suit preferred the present appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are refereed as "plaintiffs" and the respondents are respondents are referred as "defendants" as arrayed in the trial Court.
4. P.W.1 is examined on behalf of plaintiffs and D.Ws.1 and 2 are examined on behalf of defendants. Exs.A1 to 2 A12 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to B26 are marked on behalf of defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs mainly contended the decree and judgment of trial Court is contrary to law and facts of the case and also erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. The trial Court failed to consider that the plaintiffs have established their title over the property and the respondents/defendants have denied the title of plaintiffs to the suit land in Suit O.S. No.832 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, R.R District. Therefore, requests this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondents/defendants contended that the trial Court had evaluated the documentary and oral evidence adduced by both parties and arrived at just and proper conclusion that the appellants failed to establish their title over the suit schedule property, as such the suit has been dismissed by the trial Court.
3
7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.1211 of 2004, dated 13.03.2009 is sustainable in law and on facts"?
9. To answer the point for consideration, it is necessary to note down the gist of pleadings and evidence of both parties before the trial Court.
10. The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute owners and possessors of plot numbers 198 to 216 (total 19 plots) in survey No.80 admeasuring 2300 sq.yards situated at Peerzadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R District (herein after referred as suit schedule property). The husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 5 namely Teegala Yadaiah had purchased the total land admeasuring 1 acre in survey No.80 under the registered sale deed No.2839/68 dated 06.05.1968 of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East. The said Teegala Yadaiah is also known as Uppari Yadaiah because of his profession. Teegala Yadaiah died in the year 199 leaving behind the plaintiffs 4 No.1 to 5 as his legal heirs. Since the plaintiffs could not manage the property, they have executed registered sale cum general power of attorney with possession vide document No.5163/2004 of Sub-Registrar, Uppal dated 04.05.2004 in favour of plaintiffs No.6 to 9. By virtue of the said document they have been given power to sell the property and accordingly the plaintiffs No.6 to 9 were put in possession of the said property.
11. The vendors of Teegala Yadaiah have converted the said land into residential plots. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of the said lay out. As matter stood thus, the defendants No.1 and 2 without any manner of right tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the attorney over the suit schedule property on 11.05.2004. In such circumstances, the attorneys have filed a suit for perpetual injunction against D1 and D2 on the file of Civil Vacation Judge, Rangareddy vide O.S.No.50/2004. Subsequently, the said suit is made over to the regular court i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North) Rangareddy District and renumbered as O.S.832/2004. In 5 the said suit the defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that they sold the property in favour of various third parties in the year 2002 itself basing on unenforceable documents like private sale deed, agreement of sale etc. Thus, for the first time the defendants have denied the title of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
12. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.832/2004 have withdrawn the suit by reserving their right to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is clear that the defendants No.1 and 2 without any manner of right or title have transferred the property in favour of defendants 3 to 11. The defendants 3 to 11 will not get any title over the property. However, since the defendants 3 to 11 have denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs are Constrained to file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, hence the suit.
13. Denying the contention of plaintiffs, the 1st defendant had submitted written statement and the same was adopted by other defendants. It is contended by the 6 defendants that the plaintiffs are not the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The contention that they have purchased the suit schedule property from the true owners is incorrect. The registered sale deed No.2839/1968, dated 06.05.1968 is a false and created document for the purpose of the suit. The alleged sale deed was never acted upon. The sale deed was obtained without permission from the Tahsildar as required under Sec.47 and 48 of A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, therefore the said sale deed is void in the eye of law. The said sale deed does not contain the boundaries of the suit schedule property and the revenue authorities did not mutate basing on the said sale deed. Teegala Yadaiah was never in possession of the said land.
14. The defendants No.1 is not aware about the execution of registered agreement of sale cum GPA by the legal heirs of Teegala Yadaiah vide document No.5163/2004, dated 04.05.2004. As a matter of fact, the legal heirs of Teegala Yadaiah were also never in possession of the suit schedule property, as such agreement of sale cum GPA with delivery 7 of possession does not arise. The alleged GPA if any is also created one to grab the land of the defendants. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit.
15. The plaintiffs are no way concerned with the land admeasuring 2300 Sq.yards in survey No.80. No succession has been granted in favour of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 after the death of Teegala Yadaiah. This one fact is sufficient to establish that plaintiffs have no concern with the suit schedule property. The contention of the plaintiffs that vendors of Teegala Yadaiah have converted the said land into residential plots is incorrect.
16. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants No.6 to 9 have filed a suit on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, R.R.District vide O.S.No.832/2004 wherein they have mentioned that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have converted the land into residential plots. As a matter of fact, Teegala Yadaiah died in the year 1990 itself and the lay out was prepared in the year 1984. Therefore, the question of converting one acre of land into 8 residential plots by the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 does not arise. This fact itself falsifies entire case of the plaintiffs.
17. The true facts of the case are that O.Narsaiah and others were the joint owners and possessors of land bearing Survey No.79 admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas and Survey No.80 admeasuring Ac.17.13 guntas in total admeasuring Ac.18.39 guntas situated at Peerzadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District. The said original owners have jointly executed a registered GPA in favour of Singaram Balaiah S/o.Sailu to an extent of Ac.8.10 guntas in Survey No.79 and 80. Later on 29.10.1981 the original owners have executed another GPA in favour of Venguri Venkaiah in respect of survey numbers 79, 80 and 128 to an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas. The GPA holders have converted the said land into residential plots in the year 1982 to an extent of Ac.11.15 guntas. They have executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 01.02.1998 to an extent of one acre consisting of plot Nos. 198 to 216 in Survey No.80. Since then the defendant No.1 has been enjoying the suit land as absolute owner 9 and possessor and the name of defendant No.1 is got mutated in the revenue records as Pattadar and possessor.
18. The defendant No.1 had sold away the entire plots to the purchasers under registered agreement of sale cum GPA and the sale deeds in the year 2002 itself. The defendants No.2 to 11 are the purchasers from defendant No.1. They have been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. They have obtained permission from concerned Gram Panchayat and started construction of a few houses. At this stage with a malafide intention to extort money from the defendants, the plaintiffs No.6 to 9 in collusion with plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have created documents and filed the present suit.
19. The plaintiffs have filed another suit vide O.S.No.50/2004 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge and sought injunction. This defendant made appearance and submitted a detailed counter. The Vacation Civil Judge had dismissed I.A. No.81/2004 categorically holding that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs there in did not prefer appeal against the 10 orders in I.A. No.81/2004 in O.S.No.50/2004. Thus, the orders in I.A.No.81/2004 have attained finality. At that stage by creating a GPA on 04.05.2004 litigation has been created by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.50/2004 have not pressed the suit and filed the present suit without seeking permission of the Court. Therefore, the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
20. Basing on these pleadings, the trial court framed the following charges:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule property as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
21. To establish the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.6 is examined as P.W.1. Except the plaintiff No.6, no other witness has been examined by the plaintiff. On closure of plaintiffs' evidence, defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 11 and defendant No.10 is examined as D.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exs.A1 to A12 are marked and on behalf of defendants Exs.B1 to B26 are marked.
22. In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession the basic principle is that the plaintiff has to fall or stand on his own legs and he cannot depend on the weaknesses of the case of the defendant. In the present case the plaintiffs have contended that the late Teegala Yadaiah, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 had purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed marked as Ex.A1. Basically the said document is in Urdu language. No doubt the plaintiffs have filed the translated copy of the said sale deed. But there is no authenticity of the said translation. The defendants have categorically denied the genuinity of the said document. Whenever the genuinity of the document is disputed by the opposite party, it becomes an obligation for the plaintiffs who rely on the said document to prove the contents of such document. Mere submission of document is not enough. The contents of the document need to be proved by 12 examining the relevant witness. No doubt the document belongs to the year 1968 and by now the executants of the document may be alive or not. In such case the plaintiffs should have made endeavour to produce the legal heirs of the executants to show that their ancestors have had better title and as such they have sold away the said property in favour of late Teegala Yadaiah. Non examination of a relevant witness to prove the contents of the document goes against the contention of plaintiffs and it also fortifies the contention of defendants that it is a fabricated document. At least to prove the translated copy, the plaintiffs should have summoned the translator to speak to the contents of the document, otherwise the covenants made in the document cannot be construed to be true.
23. The plaintiffs have chosen to examine only one witness i.e., the plaintiff No.6 who is a GPA holder. He is not the legal heir of Late Teegala Yadaiah. Being a GPA holder he may not have better knowledge about flow of title from the predecessors. Therefore, in his evidence he could 13 not say elucidatively about the total extent of disputed Sy.No and the boundaries of suit schedule property which is part and parcel of huge extent of these survey numbers. The legal heirs of Teegala Yadaiah would have been a better witness to reveal the correct facts of the case. Instead of examining one of the legal heirs of Teegala Yadaiah, the plaintiffs have chosen to examine a sole witness whose evidence was not helpful in appreciating the case of plaintiffs. Particularly, in a comprehensive suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the plaintiffs are supposed to examine proper and relevant witness who can depose about flow of title and say as to how they acquired title over the property. On these lines the plaintiffs failed.
24. On the earlier occasion one of the plaintiffs i.e., plaintiffs No.6 to 9 have filed O.S.No.50/2004 on the file of V Addl.District Judge cum Vacation Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and sought an interim injunction vide I.A.No.81/2004 in O.S.No.50/2004. On that occasion Di herein made his appearance and submitted an elaborate counter in I.A. The learned District Judge while dismissing 14 the I.A. has categorically observed that the sale deed dated 26.06.1998 is invalid sale deed and cannot be enforced because it was executed without obtaining permission from Tahsildar under the provisions of Sec. 47 of A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. The learned District Judge has relied on the case law reported in Bedaru Jhansi and others Vs. G.Laxmamma 1 by LRs wherein the Hon'ble High Court of AP held that:
"Sale deed executed without obtaining sanction under Sec.47 of AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 is not valid".
25. While deciding the said IA, the learned District Judge has extensively discussed the documents submitted by the plaintiffs therein and held that the plaintiffs are not the owners or possessors of suit schedule property. The said orders passed in I.A. No.81/2004 have not been challenged by the plaintiffs No.6 to 9 herein, as a result of which the said order attained finality. More particularly the observations of a competent court of law holds good that the sale deed under Ex.A1 is an invalid document in the 1 1999 (III) ALD 381 15 eye of law having been hit under the provisions of AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. Not only that there is a denial from the defendants saying that the sale deed is a bogus sale deed but there is an observation by a competent court of law saying that the said sale deed is an invalid sale deed. When the defendants emphatically deny the sale deed, it is mandatory for the plaintiffs to prove the execution of document, contents of document and conveyance of the property under the said document. In all those aspects the plaintiffs failed. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that by virtue of Ex.A1 the title did not pass to the plaintiffs.
26. In a suit for declaration when the plaintiffs claim that they acquired title to the suit property having purchased the same from the real owners, at least the plaintiffs should have submitted revenue documents to show that the property originally stands in the name of their vendors. Needless to say that one who has title only can pass on a better title to the purchasers. Non submission of any documentary evidence and non-production of relevant 16 witness to prove the contents of Ex.A1 goes against the case of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 contend that their father Teegala Yadaiah had purchased the suit scheduled property way back in 1968 obviously his name would reflect in the revenue records as Pattadar and Possessor. But, the plaintiffs failed to file any revenue record like Pattadar Pass Books and pahanies to show the ownership and possession of Teegala Yadaiah. When the plaintiffs specifically contend that Smt.Teega Muttemmam, Teega Bhaskar, Teega Prabhakar, Teega Sudhakar and Teega Dayakar are the predecessors in the title, at least the Pattadar Pass Books which stand in the name of those persons should have been submitted by the plaintiffs to lay the foundation. Non-submission of Pattadar Pass Books of predecessors in title and non-submission of Pattadar Pass Book and creates doubt in the case of the plaintiffs. On these lines also the findings of the Trial Judge are justified.
27. Rebutting the contentions of plaintiffs, the defendants have submitted the original title deed of real owners under Ex.B1 and Pattadar Pass Books under 17 Ex.B2, C.C of pahanies under Ex.B3 to B8 and land revenue receipts under Ex.B9 to B18. These documents filed by the defendants manifestly establish the contention of the defendants that O.Narsaiah and others were the joint owners of Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas and Sy.No.80 admeasuring Ac.17.13 guntas. The defendants have submitted the GPA executed by Vangari China Pochaiah and 6 others in favour of Vangari Venkaiah under Ex.B19 in respect of Sy.No.79, 80 and 128 to an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas. They have also submitted C.C of GPA executed by Vangari Narsimlu and others in favour of Singaram Balaiah under Ex.B20 in respect of Ac.8.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.79 and 80. Thus, the defendants have clearly demonstrated as to how the flow of title has taken place and as to how the defendant No.1 became the owner of suit schedule property. In the cross examination of D.Ws.1 and 2 no such facts have been elicited to disprove the contents of documents filed by defendants. For that matter even though the defendants failed to establish their case with unfettered evidence, the plaintiffs 18 will not succeed in their case of declaration and possession depending on weakness in the case of defendants. In plethora of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that it is trite to law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs by proving his case. The court cannot shift onus of proof of title and possession of the plaintiffs, on the defendants.
28. It is settled law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession the burden of proof completely rests with the plaintiff irrespective of the fact that the defendants could not establish their contentions.
29. On these lines the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case law reported in Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited 2 has held as follows:
"In a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The legal 2 (2014) 2 SCC 269 19 position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against them, in the absence of establishment of the plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited."
30. As per the very contention of the plaintiffs, the total extent of 18 acres 39 guntas was owned by four persons then how would Vangu Venkaiah got 2 acres 36 guntas of land is a question for which there is no plausible explanation from the plaintiffs. Unless there was a partition or settlement amongst the co-owners, Vangu Venkaiah cannot become absolute owner in respect of 2 acres 36 guntas of land. The plaintiffs have failed to establish either by documentary evidence or through oral evidence that the vendors of Teegala Yadaiah have clear alienable right over the suit schedule property. Once the plaintiffs failed to prove the better title of their vendors, the title deed under which their father allegedly purchased the 20 property becomes a sham document which cannot be acted upon.
31. Whenever a property is conveyed under a registered sale deed the minimum requirement of the sale deed is that it must contain the boundaries of the land which is sold in favour of the vendee. When the sale deed executed by Vangu Venkaiah in favour of Teegala Yadaiah is carefully perused there are no boundaries of land which has been sold in favour of Teegala Yadaiah. Thus the identity of the land purchased by Teegala Yadaiah itself is suspicious. If Teegala Yadaiah really purchased the suit scheduled property from Vangu Venkaiah way back in 1968, he could have got his name mutated in revenue records and Pattadar Pass Book could have been issued in favour of Teegala Yadaiah but it is an undisputed fact that Pattadar Pass Book was issued not in favour of Teegala Yadaiah but it was issued in favour of defendant No.1 i.e., G.Pentaiah. In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, not only title of the vendors of plaintiffs but the title of the Teegala Yadaiah is supposed to be established. Except the 21 certified copy of the sale deed the plaintiffs could not submit any convincing evidence to establish the title of Teegala Yadaiah in respect of suit schedule property.
32. Whenever plaintiffs seek a relief of recovery of possession, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to specifically plead the day on which they have been dispossessed. The sale deeds under which D3 to D11 have purchased the suit schedule property is way back in 2002. Through the said sale deeds the plaintiffs deemed to have been dispossessed. More so, defendant No.1 has specifically contended that way back in February 1998 the original owners of survey No.79, 80 and 128 have executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and put him in possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the unregistered sale deed has been regularized and Pattadar Pass Book was also issued in favour of the defendant No.1. Therefore, the dispossession of the plaintiffs would have taken place long back in 1998 itself. If the year 1998 is accepted as the year of dispossession, basically the suit for declaration and recovery of possession 22 in the year 2004 is belated. As can be seen from the pleadings the plaintiffs have not referred to any of these transactions of 1998 or 2002 as cause of action and they have created illusionary cause of action in the year 2004 as if they have been dispossessed in 2004. The cause of action is only invented for the purpose of the case and it is a result of clever drafting. Such suit based on imaginary cause of action is also not sustainable in the eye of law. Since the plaintiffs could not vividly show the date, month and year of dispossession, the relief sought by them for recovery of possession is also not sustainable and on these lines the findings of Trial Court is justified.
33. The defendants have taken a specific plea that the suit is hit under Order 2 Rule 2. The learned Trial Court ought to have framed an issue and answered it. However, it is borne by record that on the earlier occasion the plaintiffs 6 to 9 have filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.832/2004 and sought interim injunction vide I.A. No.81/2004. On dismissal of I.A. No.81/2004, the plaintiffs have not pressed the suit and filed the present 23 suit. Such practice is not legal. The plaintiffs contended that they have withdrawn the suit reserving their right to file another suit. The copy of petition seeking permission is not filed. If the court permitted for withdrawal, such order granting permission should have been filed, but the plaintiff did not file the leave granted by the Court also. On the other hand they filed the present suit repeating the same cause of action of earlier suit, hence the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 also come in the way of plaintiff to proceed with the suit.
In the case law reported in S.Nazeer Ahmad Vs., State Bank of Mysore 3 it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
"Order 2 Rule 2 is directed to securing an exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and the same action of different causes of action, even though they may arise from the same transaction. The broad principle is that the defendant cannot be vexed twice over the same cause of action. Based on the same cause of action there cannot be a second suit for a wider or larger relief'.3
2007) II SCC 75 24
34. It is settled law that whenever there is dispute with regard to identity of the land one has to look at the boundaries as mentioned in the document. It is because rather than the survey numbers and other identity marks of the property it is the boundaries of the said property which play significant role in identifying the land. In the present case the plaintiffs have relied on the sale deed of 1968 which does not disclose the boundaries of the land which was sold under the said document. As a result of which it cannot be said that under Ex.A1 the land sold in favour of Teegala Yadaiah is the suit schedule property. Without proper identification of the suit schedule property, a suit claiming declaration and recovery of possession is not maintainable. It is relevant to mention here that whenever a particular piece of land from out of huge land is sold away, the common practice is to prepare a sketch of the entire land owned by the vendors and in the said sketch the particular land sold under the sale deed will be depicted in a different colour for clear identification of the property. In the present case the sale deed filed by the 25 plaintiffs does not contain any sketch of the entire extent of land or the suit schedule property which is claimed to be part and parcel of huge extent of land. In view of these circumstances, the very identity of suit land as claimed by the plaintiff is doubtful and the pleadings of the plaintiff are not supported by concrete documentary evidence.
35. No doubt the defendant No.1 contended that he purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed from the GPA holders on 01.02.1988. Since it was an unregistered sale deed it was regularized and the Pattadar Pass Book was issued in favour of D1 Pentaiah. After obtaining the Pattadar Pass Book he converted the suit schedule property into house site plots bearing numbers 198 to 216. He had executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 11. Having obtained the registered sale deeds, the purchasers of property are in physical possession and enjoyment of the plots as absolute owners. It is also not denied that some of the purchasers commenced construction of houses over the plots purchased by them. Thus, the defendants No.3 to 11 are in 26 the possession of suit schedule property since 2002 without any hindrance.
36. During the course of argument in the appeal it is brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of the registered sale deeds, the purchasers made payment of necessary fee to the Government under the Land Regularization Scheme. Having accepted the regularization, the Government has fortified the title and possession of the defendants No.3 to 11. Unless the defendants are in possession of the suit scheduled property, the Government would not have accepted the regularization fees. In the light of the fact that Land Regularization fee has been collected from D3 to D11, their title and possession over the property is concreted.
37. Another significant aspect in the present appeal is that one of the plaintiffs namely K.Shiva Kumar had purchased plot No.203 admeasuring 160 Sq.yards of land from no other than Vendee of defendant No.1 namely Smt.D.Sujatha. During the course of argument, the certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA with 27 possession vide document No.13135/2023 dated 24.07.2023 has been submitted by the defendants. This fact is not denied by the plaintiff No.8 and the document itself speaks thus. Thereby it is clear that the plaintiffs themselves accepted that Di has got absolute right over the property and he had converted the land into plots and one of the plots was sold in favour of D.Sujatha and from the said D.Sujatha the plaintiff No.8 had purchased the said plot 203, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule property. This one document is enough to throw away the case of plaintiffs at one stroke. The plaintiffs contend that D1 has no right to execute sale deeds in favour of D3 to D11 and in another breath one of the plaintiffs (plaintiff No.8) had purchased one plot from the vendee of D1. Thus, the plaintiffs tried to blow hot and cold and utterly failed to establish the title of their vendors as well as flow of title in their favour.
38. The learned Trial Judge has carefully evaluated oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both parties and arrived at proper conclusion that the plaintiffs 28 failed to prove issues 1 and 2 as such the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
39. After careful perusal of the documentary and oral evidence adduced before the Trial Court and having heard the arguments of both counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is justified and needs no interference.
40. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 13.03.2006 in O.S.No.1211 of 2004 passed by the trial Court. In the circumstances both parties shall bear their own costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 15.03.2024 CHS