APHC010076961994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO: 1585/1994

Between:

L. Atchamma ...APPELLANT

AND

The A P State Transport Corpn and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. 1605/VL N G K MURTHY

2. .

3. K.V.S.S.PRABHAKARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. M V SURESH

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 21.04.2026

Pronounced on 06.05.2026

Uploaded on 06.05.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.1585 of 1994

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short

‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenging the Decree and

Judgment, dated 12.09.1994, in O.S.No.117 of 1988 passed by the learned II

Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari, [for short ‘the trial

Court’].

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, and the respondents herein are the

defendants. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died, and

appellant Nos.2 to 6 were added as legal representatives of the deceased

sole appellant No.1.

3. Originally, the appellant/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.117 of

1988 against the defendants, seeking to declare the plaintiff’s right, title, and

interest to the extent of Ac.0.48 cents as per the plaint plan and schedule, and

direct defendant No.1 or its representatives, employees, agents, to deliver to

the plaintiff vacant possession of the plaint schedule property marked as ‘A, B,

C, D’, and direct the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to suitably revise or amend the

layout submitted by the plaintiff to defendant No.2 by excluding the plaint

schedule property from it and carry out necessary and suitable alterations;

and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

representatives, agents, employees, etc., from carrying out any construction

or interfering in any manner with the plaint schedule property, and to direct

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

defendant No.1 and whoever happens to be in occupation of the plaint

schedule property to pay the future profits to be ascertained in an enquiry,

together with costs.

4. Both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed

before the trial Court.

5. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff as per the plaint averments in

O.S.No.117 of 1988, in brief, is as follows:

I. The plaint schedule land, to an extent of Ac.0.31 cents, is part of the

total extent of Ac.8.12 cents purchased by the plaintiff under a

registered sale deed dated 27.06.1956, and ever since the purchase,

the entire extent has been bounded by a hedge, over which the hedge

plants have been grown. The plaintiff pleaded that at the time of

purchase, the land was got measured on the ground and found to be

with the extent noted in the registered sale deed. The plaintiff further

pleaded that she used to lease out her land, to an extent of Ac.8.12

cents, which includes the plaint schedule extent, for raising tobacco

seedlings every year, which has been done by the plaintiff from 1977 to

1983, and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property till defendant No.1 occupied the said property in the

year 1984. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.1 purchased

the adjoining land to the plaint schedule land to its south on 07.01.1981,

after which the agents of defendant No.1, while carrying on the leveling

operation in the own land of defendant No.1, demolished the boundary

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

hedge lying in the land of the plaintiff demarcating the plaint schedule

land.

II. The plaintiff further pleaded that the watchman engaged by the plaintiff

in her land abstained from attending to work for about three (03) months

and finally absconded without intimation to the plaintiff; as such, the

plaintiff could not notice the encroachment into the plaint schedule land

on the part of defendant No.1. The plaintiff further pleaded that till the

said encroachment took place, the plaint schedule site, along with the

remaining extent of land purchased in the year 1956, has been in the

plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment uninterruptedly. The plaintiff further

pleaded that in the month of March 1984, she discovered the

encroachment of defendant No.1 and represented the same to the

concerned authorities and tried in vain to persuade defendant No.1 to

hand over the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further

pleaded that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were misled by defendant No.1 in

approving the layout plan submitted by defendant No.1 by showing the

plaintiff’s land, to an extent of Ac.0.48 cents, as the own property of

defendant No.1, and as such, the layout approved by defendant Nos.2

and 3 in respect of the land of defendant No.1 requires suitable revision

or amendment. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking

declaration of title over the plaint schedule property.

6. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and the case of the

defendant No.1 as per the written statement is as follows:

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

I. The defendant No.1 purchased the land adjoining the plaintiff’s land,

and the defendant No.1 purchased the land from late Koduri Rajarao

Chowdari and his family members in the month of July 1981. The

defendant No.1 further pleaded that there was no hedge between the

land of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and there used to be a ‘Kattava’

in the land of defendant No.1 demarcating the land of the plaintiff and

defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that while carrying

on the leveling operations, defendant No.1 removed the trees and

leveled the ground so as to make it fit for construction of houses, and

after purchase of the land by defendant No.1 from late Koduri Rajarao

Chowdari and his family members, the extent was measured, and all

the neighboring landowners, including the plaintiff, were present at the

time of measurement. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the boundaries

of the land purchased by defendant No.1 were fixed, and all neighboring

landowners, including the plaintiff, accepted the boundaries. The

defendant No.1 pleaded that after purchase of the land, ‘Kattava’ was in

the land of defendant No.1, and while carrying on the leveling

operations, defendant No.1 leveled the land within the limits of the

boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and within the boundaries fixed

at the time of the measurement.

II. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the Society was formed to cater to the

housing needs of the employees of APSRTC, and defendant No.1

purchased a total extent of Ac.9.29 cents of land from late Koduri

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

Rajarao Chowdari and his family members in R.S.No.398 and 399 of

Rajahmundry for the purpose of constructing houses for its members.

The defendant No.1 further pleaded that he purchased an extent of

Ac.7.67 cents in R.S.No.399, and the balance extent was purchased in

R.S.No.398, and Sy.Nos.398 and 399 are contiguous plots. The

defendant No.1 pleaded that the lands purchased by him and the lands

in the adjacent survey numbers, including the plaintiff’s land, were

earmarked in the master plan prepared by the Rajahmundry

Municipality for constructing a sluice for storing and cleaning of sullage

water, and immediately, defendant No.1 purchased the land and applied

to the Director of Town Planning to exempt the land from the master

plan. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that after hectic efforts,

defendant No.1 could get the required exemption and was accorded

permission to prepare a layout for construction of houses.

III. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that as the entire land earmarked in

the master plan for a sluice was exempted, all the neighboring

landowners, including the plaintiff, were immensely benefited, and since

defendant No.1 converted the land into house sites, the prices of the

lands in the vicinity increased, and as such, the plaintiff wanted to

convert her land into house sites. The defendant No.1 further pleaded

that neither the plaintiff nor her predecessors in title ever had

possession or enjoyment of the plaint schedule land or the ‘Kattava’

separating the land of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendant

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

No.1 and his predecessors in title, who have been in possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule land, including the ‘Kattava’, for over

the last 35 years in their own right, openly and publicly and to the

knowledge and exclusion of one and all, including the plaintiff and her

predecessor in title, and thus perfected title by adverse possession. The

defendant No.1 further pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff is

frivolous in nature and vexatious in character and requested dismissal

of the suit with costs.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration in the plaint schedule

as per the plan marked ABCD and direct the defendants, their men to

deliver vacant possession of it?

2) Whether the defendants are to be directed to revise and amend the

layout plans submitted by the 1

st

defendant excluding the plaint

schedule land?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction in respect of

the plaint schedule property?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to profits?

5) Whether the 2

nd

defendant is not a proper and necessary party to the

suit?

6) Whether the court has no jurisdiction against the 2

nd

defendant in

respect of the relief claimed against him?

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

7) To what relief?

On 09.11.1993, the trial Court has framed the following additional issue:

1) Whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession?

10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,

P.Ws.1 to 3 was examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 were marked. On behalf

of the defendants, D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Ex.B -1 to

Ex.B-22 were marked.

11. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides,

the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated

12.09.1994, against which the present appeal is preferred by the

appellant/plaintiff in the suit, questioning one of the findings arrived by the trial

Court in its decree and judgment.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court below is erroneous, contrary to law, the

weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case. He would further contend

that the trial Court failed to observe that the boundary between the appellant

and respondent No.1 land has a ‘Kattava’, and the said ‘Kattava’ has been

included in the land sold to the appellant according to the boundary recitals.

Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the trial Court

failed to observe that the Advocate Commissioner corroborated and

substantiated the case of the appellant to the effect that respondent

No.1/defendant has encroached upon the site of the appellant. Learned

counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court failed to observe

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

that the appellant/plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the

disputed ‘Kattava’, which is the demarcating land between the properties of

the appellant and the predecessor in title of respondent No.1/defendant, and

he would further contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence

in a proper manner and dismissed the suit, and he would further contend that

the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed

by the trial Court.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that on

appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge has

rightly dismissed the suit, and there is no need to interfere with the findings

arrived at by the trial Court, and that the appeal may be dismissed.

14. Heard Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff and Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for the

respondents/defendants.

15. Now, in deciding the present appeal, the points that arise for

determination are as follows:

1) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is having valid right and title in the

plaint schedule property?

2) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of

possession of the plaint schedule property?

3) Whether the decree and judgment dated 12.09.1994, passed by the

trial Court needs any interference?

16. Point No.1:

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

Whether the appellant/plaintiff is having valid right and title in the

plaint schedule property?

The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that she purchased the total extent

of Ac.8.12 cents, including the plaint schedule land of an extent of Ac.0.48

cents, under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.1956, and since the date of

purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The

plaintiff specifically pleaded in Paragraph No.5 of the plaint that defendant

No.1 purchased the adjoining land to the plaint schedule land to its south on

07.01.1981, after which the agents of defendant No.1, while carrying on the

leveling operations in its own land, demolished the boundary hedge lying in

the land of the plaintiff demarcating the plaint schedule land and thereafter

encroached upon the plaint schedule land. There is no whisper in the plaint as

to when the agents of defendant No.1 demolished the boundary hedge line in

the land of the plaintiff, which demarcates the land of the plaintiff and the land

of defendant No.1. There is also no whisper in the plaint as to when defendant

No.1 encroached upon the plaint schedule land. Since the appellant/plaintiff

approached the Civil Court for seeking the relief of declaration of title of

Ac.0.48 cents of immovable property, therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove

the title in the plaint schedule land by producing cogent and documentary

evidence.

17. As stated supra, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of title

and also for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, and

therefore, the entire burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. The legal

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

position in this regard is no more res integra, and the same has been well

settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. In a case of

Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society

Limited and others

1

, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“In a suit for declaration of title, 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 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

only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the

question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view

that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of

establishment of plaintiff‟s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.”

18. In a case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo

Avira & others

2

, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“It is perfectly clear that in a suit of this description if the plaintiffs are to succeed they

must do so on the strength of their own title.”

In a case of Sajana Granites, Madras and another vs. Manduva

Srinivasa Rao and others

3

, wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad, held as follows:

“The Supreme Court in M.P. Athanastus case (supra), M.M. Catholices v. Polo Avira

case (supra) and this Court in C. Audilakshmamma case (supra) held that plaintiff in a

suit for declaration of title, and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the

strength of his own title and that it is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and

prove the possible defects in the plaintiffs title and so if the plaintiff fails to establish his

title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintiff must be non suited. In

this case since appellants are seeking declaration of their title to the suit property they

have to establish their title; and cannot expect relief on the basis of the weakness of

1

(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269

2

1958 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 136

3

2001 SCC OnLine AP 666

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

the case of respondents 1 and 2, or on the basis that the evidence adduced by

respondents 1 and 2 does not establish their title to the suit property.”

In a case of K.Venkatasubba Reddy vs. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) by

L.Rs.

4

17, wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad, held as follows:

“A Division Bench of this Court also in Chakicherla Adilakshmamma v. Almakuru

Rama Rao and Ors,- (3) AIR 1973 AP 149. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in AIR 1954 SC 526 (cited supra) held that "in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff is

liable to be nonsuited, if he fails to establish his own title irrespective of the question

whether the defendants have proved their case or not."

The law laid down by the Supreme Court and also by the Division Bench of this Court

in the ejectment suits is also applicable to the suits for declaration of title. Thus, the

plaintiff must succeed by establishing his own title, by adducing satisfactory evidence

and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case.

19. Brahma Nand Puri vs. Neki Puri Since deceased represented by

Mathra Puri and another, the Apex Court held as follows:

“The plaintiff‟s suit being one for ejnectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that

he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail

notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming

learned counsel is right in that submission”.

In a case of Jagdish Narain vs. Nawab Sai Ahmed Khan, wherein the

Privy Council held as follows:

“In a suit in ejectment the plaintiffs can succeed only on the strength of their own title,

and there is no obligation upon the defendants to plead possible defects in the

plaintiffs‟ title which might manifest themselves when the title is disclosed. It is

sufficient that in the written statement the defendants deny the plaintiffs‟ title, and

under this plea, they can avail themselves of any defect which such title discloses.”

In a case of A. Ramloo and others vs. G. Sreeramachandra Murthy

and others, wherein the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad held as follows:

4

1999 (1) APLJ 416 (HC)

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

“In a ruling reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catheolicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar

Poulose Athanasius and others, AIR 1954 SC 526, it has been held by their Lordships

as under:

"That the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title. This

can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him

irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his case or not. A mere destruction

of the defendants title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the

plaintiff nowhere."

20. In the present case, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3. P.W.1 is the son of the plaintiff. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that in the

year 1983 or in the year 1984, defendant No.1 prepared a layout and

encroached upon the land by removing the bund, and when defendant No.1

was trying to encroach, the plaintiff raised resistance, and the removal of the

bund was temporarily stopped, and till that time, the land of Ac.0.31 cents,

which was encroached upon by defendant No.1, had been in their possession,

and the approval of the layout by defendant No.2, which was submitted by

defendant No.1, is not within their knowledge. He further admits that

defendant No.1 purchased the extent held by Koduri Rajarao in the year 1981,

and there was no quarrel or dispute with regard to the southern boundary of

their land by Rajarao or by defendant No.1 till the disputes arose sometime

before the filing of the suit. He further admits that he prepared a layout in the

year 1985 or in the year 1986, and the person who prepared their layout plan,

by name Janardhan, also helped and prepared the layout for defendant No.1.

He further deposed that in the month of February–March, 1984, defendant

No.1 was occupying a portion of their land by engaging a bulldozer, and he

got issued a legal notice after stopping the work. As per the evidence of

P.W.1, her layout plan and the layout plan of defendant No.1 were prepared

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

by one Surya Rao. It is undisputed that the layout submitted by defendant

No.1 was approved, but there is no evidence on record to show whether the

layout plan submitted by the plaintiff was approved or not.

21. The undisputed facts of both the parties are that one N.Veeramma was

having a total extent of Ac.16.24 cents in R.S.No.399, and one Koduri Rajarao

Chowdari purchased an extent of Ac.8.12 cents from N.Veeramma on

30.01.1948, and subsequently, the said Rajarao Chowdari also purchased an

extent of Ac.1.62 cents in R.S.No.398 under Ex.B-2. The plaintiff purchased

an extent of Ac.8.12 cents from the said Veeramma under Ex.A -1 on

28.07.1956. It is also evident that the sale deed in favour of the vendor of

defendant No.1 is much earlier than the sale deed of the plaintiff. The

document of the vendor of the defendant, which relates to the year 1948, is

much prior to the plaintiff’s sale deed, it was recited in the said document that

the boundary between both the parties is a joint ‘Kattava’ belonging to the

vendor by name N.Veeramma and Rajarao Chowdari. The right of the vendor

of defendant No.1 in the said joint ‘Kattava’ was never objected to by the

plaintiff or the predecessors of the plaintiff from 1948 onwards. In the plaint

also, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 purchased the suit

schedule land on its south on 07.04.1981, after which the agents of defendant

No.1, while carrying on the leveling operations in its own land, demolished the

boundary hedge lying in the land of the plaintiff demarcating the plaint

schedule land and the land purchased by defendant No.1 and encroached

into the plaint schedule property. There is no whisper in the plaint and in the

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

evidence of P.W.1 as to when defendant No.1 demolished the boundary

hedge. As stated supra, the plaintiff approached the Court for seeking relief of

declaration of title and also possession, but the evidence of P.W.1 is not

convincing to support of the case of the plaintiff.

22. P.W.2 is the Advocate Commissioner who visited the suit schedule

property. As per the evidence of P.W.2, defendant No.1 also gave his title

deeds at the time of his inspection, and he localized the land only with

reference to the field measurement book, and he did not localize the land with

reference to the title deed of defendant No.1. He further admitted that the

plaintiff informed him orally that Ac.35.00 cents of land was acquired, and he

did not produce any document in that behalf. He further admits that he cannot

say as to how he arrived at the figure of Ac.7.57 cents as mentioned in the

report. In the Advocate Commissioner warrant, the Advocate Commissioner

was directed by the Court to localize the disputed schedule land with

reference to the title deeds of both the parties, but admittedly, the Advocate

Commissioner/P.W.2 did not execute the warrant with reference to the title

deeds of both the parties. By assigning reasons, the trial Court rightly ignored

the evidence of P.W.2.

23. P.W.3 deposed in his evidence that the ‘Kattava’ is in existence for

more than twenty (20) years and that the said ‘Kattava’ is the boundary line

between the suit land and the land of Rajarao. He further admits that one

Vanumu Abhadham, who is his brother by courtesy, cultivated the land of the

plaintiff for about 4 or 5 years and that he came to know about the existence

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

of the ‘Kattava’ in the said land. Therefore, his evidence clearly goes to show

that he is in no way concerned with the suit schedule land and he has no

personal knowledge about the suit schedule land. For the aforesaid reasons,

this Court is of the considered view that the evidence produced by the plaintiff

is not to establish that the plaintiff is having right and title in the plaint schedule

property.

24. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law in Nilima Das

Gupta (Deceased) Through its Lrs. Vs. On the Death of Abdur Rouf his

Legal Heirs & Ors.

5

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“Thus, under Sections 118 all persons are competent to testify, unleas the court

considers that by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease, or infirmity, they

are incapable of understanding the questions put to them and of giving rational

answers. Competency of a person to testify as a witness is a condition precedent to

the admissibility and credibility of his evidence.”

In the case at hand, the plaintiff was aged about 81 years at the time of

filing of the suit, and she is a ‘senior citizen’, and because of her old age of 81

years, her son gave evidence as P.W.1. P.W.1 is the son of the plaintiff. It was

not suggested to P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 is

not competent to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. It is not the case of

respondent No.1 that P.W.1 is not competent to give evidence on behalf of the

plaintiff.

25. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law in Dina Malar

Publications, A Tamil Daily, Reptd., By Its Partner, R.Krishnamoorthy Vs.

5

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 740

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

The Tiruchirapalli Municipality, Reptd., By its Executive Authority, The

Commr., And Ors.

6

, wherein the High Court of Madras held as follows:

“9. The property in question bears a subdivided town survey No. 371/2, with an

extent of 2,400 sq. ft. The property in question is not an unsurveyed area or an area in

respect of which the extent is in doubt. In laying down the principle that the boundaries

should prevail over the extent, in the above decisions, the learned Judges have

applied the following principles:(l)in case of doubtful or varying extents in the

documents of title relating to the property, boundaries should be preferred to the

extent; (2) Only in the absence of definite material to show the actual extent intended

to be sold the boundaries should outweigh the doubtful extent mentioned in the

document; (3) If the recitals in the documents and the circumstances of the case show

that a lesser extent only was conveyed than the area covered by boundaries, and

there is clear evidence as to the intention of the parties with reference to the extent

conveyed, then the extent should prevail over the boundaries. Bearing in mind the

above said principles, we will have to examine the facts of this case.”

In the case at hand, the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 relates to

the year 1956, whereas the defendant’s vendor’s sale deed relates under

Ex.B-1 to the year 1948. Therefore, the boundaries in Ex.B-1 i.e. the earlier

registered sale deed prevail over those in Ex.A-1. It is not in dispute that after

purchase of the schedule property by the vendor of defendant No.1, his

possession was uninterrupted by the vendor and also by the plaintiff herein.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the

evidence produced by the plaintiff failed to prove the right and title of the

plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.

26. To disprove the evidence of the plaintiff and to prove the defence of

defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 relied on the evidence of D.W.1 and

D.W.2. As per the evidence of D.W.1, he deposed that after taking

measurements, the defendants took possession of the land covered under

6

1983 0 Supreme(Mad) 340

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

Ex.B-3 to Ex.B-11, and before taking the measurements, they informed the

plaintiff, and she deputed her son/P.W.1 at the time of taking measurements.

He further deposed that the adjacent neighbors were also present at the time

of taking measurements, and as per the measurements, the ridge (‘Kattava’)

lies within the boundary of defendant No.1 land, and P.W.1 did not raise any

objection while taking the measurements. He further deposed that when

defendant No.1 purchased the land, the land was full of shrubs and was

uneven with ups and downs, and by the time defendant No.1 purchased the

land from Rajarao Chowdari and his family members, the land of the plaintiff

was not under cultivation. He further deposed that the Government had

granted exemption, and the layout was also approved by the Director of Town

Planning in its proceedings dated 24.11.1983, and before approving the said

layout, the land was measured by the Municipality, and as the measurements

were correct, the layout plan was approved. D.W.1 further deposed that the

disputed site was also included in the layout, and the plots were also

earmarked in the said site, and they carried out leveling and also laid roads.

He further deposed that at the time of leveling the ground, the disputed ridge

was removed and leveled, but neither the plaintiff nor her son raised any

objection at that time, and as such, the agents of defendant No.1 leveled the

land with the assistance of the Agro Industries and also with private

bulldozers. He further deposed that as per the layout plan, there are a total of

195 plots, and the plots situated in the disputed site are ten (10) in number,

and defendant No.1 got prepared the layout with the assistance of a private

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

surveyor, and again the said layout was prepared in the year 1983 by the

Town Surveyor on the application made by defendant No.1 to the

Rajahmundry Municipality.

27. D.W.2 is none other than the son of the vendor of defendant No.1. The

evidence of D.W.2 supports the case of defendant No.1. To prove the title of

the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to examine her vendor to show that the vendor

of the plaintiff had title over the disputed property (‘Kattava’) in the land of the

plaintiff. On the other hand, to disprove the evidence of the plaintiff and to

prove the defence of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 relied on the evidence

of the son of his vendor, since his vendor is no more, and the son of the

vendor of defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.2. The evidence of D.W.1

and D.W.2 clearly supports the defence of defendant No.1. For the aforesaid

reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/plaintiff failed

to prove that she is having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the appellant.

28. Point Nos.2 & 3:

Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of

possession of the plaint schedule property?

Whether the decree and judgment dated 12.09.1994, passed by the

trial Court needs any interference?

As stated supra, in Point No.1, it was held that the appellant/plaintiff to

prove that she is having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property.

VGKR, J.

AS_1585_1994

Since the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the right and title in the plaint

schedule property, she is not entitled to the relief of recovery of possession of

the plaint schedule property. In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, I do

not find any illegality in the decree and judgment dated 12.09.1994, passed by

the trial Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

29. In the result, the appeal suit in A.S.No.1585 of 1994 is dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their

own costs in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall

stand closed

__________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

Date: 06.05.2026

SRT