The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs to prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property by producing oral and documentary evidence, even though the defendants did not adduce any evidence and the defendants are remained set exparte, the suit for declaration of title cannot be granted unless the plaintiffs prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the suit was filed by the Plaintiff who is the first son of one Narasimhulu, who used to enjoy the plaint schedule property along with other brothers and co-parceners. In the family partition, the property in question comes to the share of Narasimhulu and then, he died intestate leaving behind his four sons. Thereafter, the oral partition took place between brothers and the scheduled property fell to the share of the first plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pleaded that the remaining part of the plaint schedule land having an extent of Ac.0.76 cents was purchased from its owners and others in favor of second plaintiff under the registered sale deed and the remaining extent of Ac.1.20 cents of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of first plaintiff in the oral partition in the year 1994.
The Plaintiff filed a Suit for the declaration to declare that the plaintiffs have title and possession over the suit schedule property and to grant relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. However, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that even though the documentary evidence was provided in order to prove the right, title, and possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence on record.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that even though the defendants did not present any evidence and are deemed to be set ex parte, the plaintiffs endure a heavy burden of proving their right and title in the plaint schedule property through oral and documentary evidence. Without this proof, the suit for declaration of title cannot be granted.
The court furthermore observed that the material on record reveals that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property but the plaintiffs failed to prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Rame Gowda by L.Rs vs. M.Varadappa Naidu by L.Rs.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the plaintiffs were not at all entitled to the relief of declaration of title, but the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction by restraining respondents 1 and 2 and their men from ever interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs into the plaint schedule property until they were evicted under due process of law.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Lonagala Pothu Naidu and Others V. Govt. of A P and Others
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO: 637/2007
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao
Advocate for the Appellant: P VEERRAJU
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
