JUDGMENT Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Rama Mohan, the learned counsel representing Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. On 25.02.1999 this Court made the following order: "In view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No.4 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the appeal is admitted." 3. On the strength of the pleadings, in fact, the second appeal had been admitted as specified above. 4. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. 1. Whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit, by reversing the well-considered judgment and decree of the trial Court, especially, when the appellate Court has also upheld the title of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit for injunction simplicitor, ignoring the well established principles of law that possession follows title and refusing to draw such presumption as contemplated by Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act? 3. Whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit against the second defendant also, who is concerned with only item No.2 and who in fact, had not chosen to file any appeal whatsoever? 5. The respective counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the relevant findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also by the appellate Court. For the purpose of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S.No.183 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Razole. 6. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the present second appeal, namely, Somisetti Venkata Rama Krishna Rao filed the suit against the respondents/defendants praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property. 7. The brief averments made in the plaint are as under: The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property consisting of item Nos.1 and 2 under registered sale deed, dated 30.04.1985 for consideration of Rs.6300/- from one Venguri Kameswaramma. Item No.1 is full extent of Acs.0.36 cents situated in R.S.No.202/5 and item No.2 is full extent of Acs.0.45 cents situated in R.S.No.202/9. Both the lands are zeroyithi dry lands situated in Pasarlapudi Village. Item No.1 is full extent of Acs.0.36 cents situated in R.S.No.202/5 and item No.2 is full extent of Acs.0.45 cents situated in R.S.No.202/9. Both the lands are zeroyithi dry lands situated in Pasarlapudi Village. The vendor of the Vanguri Kameswaramma purchased the plaint schedule property along with some other property by means of a registered sale deed, dated 15.06.1968 from Garimella Sri Ramachandramurthy and others. The possession of the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff on the date of sale deed on his paying entire sale consideration. The plaintiff planted coconut plants in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property immediately after purchase of the said land. There were three coconut trees in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property by the time of purchase. The item No.2 was a grazing grass field. The plaintiff as well as his predecessor in title has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying taxes due to the Government. Both the defendants also attempted to purchase the plaint schedule property, but they failed to do so. As the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property, it has become as eye sore to the defendants. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is an employee, the defendants, who have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property nor have any right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever, tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Hence, the above suit. 8. The first defendant remained ex parte. The second defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint stating that he is concerned with Item No.1 only. It is also pleaded that one Sri Garimella Laxmanna garu has got considerable properties including item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The second defendant has obtained the said property in a family partition with his brothers. After his death his wife Smt. Rajeswaramma has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. These properties were leased out to various tenants. One Chelluboina Subbarao @ Subbanna used to manage them. The father of the second defendant was given a block of Acs.0.72 cents comprising item No.1 and the remaining Acs.0.36 cents in R.S.No.202/6. The entire Acs.0.72 cents is a contiguous block without any boundary bund. Subsequently, those properties fell into Godavari. These properties were leased out to various tenants. One Chelluboina Subbarao @ Subbanna used to manage them. The father of the second defendant was given a block of Acs.0.72 cents comprising item No.1 and the remaining Acs.0.36 cents in R.S.No.202/6. The entire Acs.0.72 cents is a contiguous block without any boundary bund. Subsequently, those properties fell into Godavari. During the lifetime of the father of the second defendant itself some coconut plants were planted by him out of which, one coconut tree is aged 40 years, which is still alive. Almost every year the second defendant has been planting coconut plants, out of which, three trees aged about 15 years remain now in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. He planted 50 coconut plants in entire Acs.0.73 cents of land in the year 1985 out of which two coconut plants in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property are alive. Remaining plants in item No.1 as well as in Acs.0.36 cents died in the floods of 1986. The second defendant purchased the coconut plants from Sri Kasilanka Rajarao garu of Pasarlapudi. There is a date tree aged 30 years. There is one Palmyrah plant. The second defendant has got ancestral property to the west of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and it fell to the share of his brother namely Sri Kandiboina Pullaiah. The second defendant is getting only grass from the land and he used to pay Rs.150/- per year towards rent to the landlord and the due date is Telugu New Year day. Sri Chelluboina Subbarao used to collect rents from the tenants and pay the same to Smt. Rajeswaramma or her son-in-law Sri A. Ramakrishnarao. While so, Smt. Rajeswaramma died in or about 1978 leaving behind her son and a daughter. After her death, the whereabouts of her son are not known. Sri Ramakrishnarao, the son-in-law of Rajeswaramma, on behalf of his wife agreed to sell item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as well as remaining Acs.0.36 cents to defendants for a valuable consideration of Rs.3800/- and received an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards advance and promised to get the registered sale deed executed before December, 1979. He issued a receipt dated 4.06.1979 in his own handwriting and it was attested by the mediators-Sri Thota Narasimham and Chelluboina Subbarao in whose presence the terms were settled. He issued a receipt dated 4.06.1979 in his own handwriting and it was attested by the mediators-Sri Thota Narasimham and Chelluboina Subbarao in whose presence the terms were settled. Sri Ramakrishnarao informed the second defendant and the mediators about the disappearance of his brother-in-law after receiving consideration and passing receipt, and when he was questioned, he informed them that his wife alone would be able to execute the registered sale deed after seven years thereafter. Thus the second defendant and his predecessors in title alone have got interest in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with the adjoining Ac.0.36 cents in their own right for more than half-a-century. As the property fell in Godavari for considerable period no taxes were demanded and collected from the second defendant. The alleged tax receipts relied on by the plaintiff are not relating to Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property or they were nominally obtained as per the plan to make out a false case for the present suit. Practically, neither Garimella Krishnamurty nor his sons nor Vanguri Kameswaramma nor the plaintiff touched item No.1 of the plaint schedule property at any time. The second defendant and his predecessors-in-title have also perfected title by adverse possession also. It was also pleaded that the plaint schedule mentioned is not correct, that the suit is barred by time and that there is no cause of action to file the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for and that the suit is bad for mis- joinder of causes of action and non-joinder of parties. Thus, the second defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 9. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance settled the following issues. 1. Whether the registered sale deed 30.4.1985 is true or valid or supported by consideration or binding on the defendants? 2. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 15.06.1968 is true or valid and binding on the defendant? 3. Whether the plaint schedule is not correct? 4. Whether the valuation and Court fee paid are not correct? 5. Whether the second defendant is the tenant and whether he purchased the property? 6. Whether the second defendant acquired prescriptive title to item-1 of the plaint schedule property? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? 8. Whether the plaint schedule is not correct? 4. Whether the valuation and Court fee paid are not correct? 5. Whether the second defendant is the tenant and whether he purchased the property? 6. Whether the second defendant acquired prescriptive title to item-1 of the plaint schedule property? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? 8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? 9. To what relief? 10. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 apart from examining PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the defendants, the second defendant himself was examined as DW.1 apart from examining DWs.2 to 5, and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.14. 11. The Court of first instance, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had been successful in proving his possession in respect of both the items of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit in his own right. On answering the issues in the affirmative, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is bound to succeed and accordingly, decreed the suit against both the defendants with costs as prayed for. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the second defendant carried the matter by way of appeal in A.S.No.23 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole. The lower appellate Court at paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment framed the following point for consideration: "Whether the judgment and decree, dated 20.03.1995, passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.183 of 1986 are liable to be set aside." 13. The lower appellate Court recorded reasons commencing from paragraphs 8 to 16 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and the Court of first instance had not appreciated the facts in proper perspective and accordingly allowed the appeal directing the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 14. The lower appellate Court at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment observed as under. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 14. The lower appellate Court at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment observed as under. "While coming to the case of the first respondent with regard to his incidental title over the plaint schedule property, he in addition to depose his case as PW.1 has also marked the registered sale deed dated 30.04.1985 executed in his favour by V. Kameswaramma relating to plaint schedule property and its original title deed dated 15.06.1968 as Exs.A.1 and A.2 respectively before the lower Court. The first respondent has also examined the scribe and one of the identifying witnesses of Ex.A.1 as PWs.3 and 4 respectively before the lower Court. PW.3 has deposed about his scribing of Ex.A.1 and about the signing of V. Kameswaramma in it. Similarly PW.4 has deposed about his standing as one of the identifying witnesses of Ex.A.1 before the Sub-Registrar. In addition to the above said oral and documentary evidence, the first respondent has also examined the son of V. Kameswaramma, who is also one of the attestors of Ex.A.1, as PW.5 before the lower Court. PW.5 has specifically deposed about the execution of Ex.A.1 by his mother and about his attesting the same along with another. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 to 5 coupled with the documents marked under Exs.A.1 and A.2, it is very clear that the same is quite consistent and cogent and I do not find any material on record to suspect the same. In addition to the above said circumstances, the first respondent has also marked two land revenue receipts stood in the name of V. Kameswaramma as Exs.A.3 and A.5 before the lower Court. So in view of the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced by the first respondent before the lower Court, it must be held that he has got incidental title over the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit under appeal. Even though the case of the first respondent with regard to his incidental title over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit under appeal is appreciated by the Court, it does not mean that he is entitled to have the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Even though the case of the first respondent with regard to his incidental title over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit under appeal is appreciated by the Court, it does not mean that he is entitled to have the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. As I have already discussed above, having filed the suit under appeal for the relief of bare injunction, the first respondent must prove his possession also over the plaint schedule property as on the date of the filing of the same." 15. Having observed so, the lower appellate Court further proceeded to discuss the oral and documentary evidence available on record at paragraphs 12 to 16 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and ultimately allowed the appeal. The lower appellate Court also observed at paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment hereunder. "It is no doubt true that the dispute between the parties is with regard to item No.1 of the plaint schedule. So especially when there is no dispute between the parties with regard to item No.2 of the plaint schedule admittedly, the question of granting any permanent injunction does not arise as if there is some dispute. Further as I have already discussed above, the first respondent has failed to prove his possession over the entire plaint schedule property by the date of suit under appeal." 16. As can be seen from the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the lower appellate Court on the aspect of title, affirmative findings had been recorded. But, however, on the aspect of possession, the lower appellate Court recorded some discrepancies in the oral evidence relating to the absence of the witness deposing delivery of possession in pursuance of title deed, and came to the conclusion that the same had not been established. 17. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased both the items of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1, registered sale deed, dated 30.04.1985, from his vendor Venguri Kameswaramma, W/o.Lakshmanarao. The said sale deed under Ex.A.1 shows that the plaintiff had purchased item Nos.1 and 2 on 30.04.1985. 17. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased both the items of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1, registered sale deed, dated 30.04.1985, from his vendor Venguri Kameswaramma, W/o.Lakshmanarao. The said sale deed under Ex.A.1 shows that the plaintiff had purchased item Nos.1 and 2 on 30.04.1985. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A.2-registered sale deed, dated 15.06.1968, executed by Garimella Sri Ramachandramurty S/o. Garimella Krishna Murthy and others in favour of Venguri Kameswaramma W/o.Lakshmanarao in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property along with other properties. It is also the case of the plaintiff that his vendor handed over Ex.A.2 to him and in both Exs.A.1 and A.2 there are specific recitals relating to delivery of possession as well. It is also the case of the plaintiff that his vendor Kameswaramma used to pay taxes in respect of the plaint schedule property and had been handing over the tax receipts to him, out of which two tax receipts were marked as Exs.A.3 and A.4. Ex.A.5 to A.9 also had been marked. 18. The stand taken by the second defendant was that he is concerned with item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and an extent of Acs.0.36 cents in R.S.No.202/5, and he has nothing to do with the other items of the plaint schedule. It is the case of the second defendant that originally Acs.0.70 cents of land out of which the plaint schedule property is a part, is in their possession and originally this land belonged to one Garimella Ramanna, who got this property and other properties in partition. After the death of Ramanna, his wife Rajeswaramma has been in possession of the said land and one Chelluboina Subbanna used to manage the lands of Ramanna. The father of the second defendant, Subbanna has been in possession of Acs.0.70 cents of land in one bit even during the lifetime of Ramanna. The said lands are in between river and river bund and used to submerge, and sometimes across during floods in Godavari river. His father used to raise the level of land and plant coconut trees and now there is one coconut tree aged 50 years. Later, the second defendant planted coconut trees, and there are three coconut trees aged 20 years. Several other facts also had been narrated. 19. His father used to raise the level of land and plant coconut trees and now there is one coconut tree aged 50 years. Later, the second defendant planted coconut trees, and there are three coconut trees aged 20 years. Several other facts also had been narrated. 19. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and DWs.1 to 5 and also the documentary evidence-Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Exs.B.1 to B.14 had been appreciated by the Court of first instance. In the light of the clear evidence of PW.1 well supported by PWs.2 to 5 and title deeds under Exs.A.1 and A.2 as already referred to supra, further, on the basis of well supporting title deeds and the recitals there under, and relevant delivery of possession under Ex.A.3 to A.9, positive findings had been recorded relating to the factum of possession, and the suit had been decreed. As against these findings, the evidence of DWs.1 to 5, and Ex.B.1-Registration extract of partition deed dated 24.09.1973, Ex.B.2- Registration extract of sale deed dated 17.03.1987, Ex.B.3-Registrtion extract of sale deed dated 31.06.1989, Exs.B.4 and B.5-receipt and revenue tax receipts, Exs.B.6 to B.9-showing payment of tax, Ex.B.10-the office copy of legal notice, Exs.B.11 to B.14-the postal receipts and postal acknowledgements, had been relied upon. 20. When there is clear evidence of PW.1 well supported by the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 and the title by virtue of Ex.A.1 had been confirmed by the Court of first instance, which had been affirmed even by the appellate Court, the recitals in these documents Exs.A.1 and A.2 cannot be ignored. It is not as though any better evidence to replace the clear evidence on the part of the plaintiff had been placed by the defendants. When the recitals relating to the delivery of possession are clear and categorical in the title deeds, the discrepancy, if any, in the oral evidence cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve the factum of possession, and the lower appellate Court is not justified in reversing the well-considered findings of the trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is bound to succeed and accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. It is needless to say that the decree and judgment of the Court of first instance are hereby restored and the decree and judgment of the lower appellate Court are hereby set aside. 21. Hence, the Second Appeal is bound to succeed and accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. It is needless to say that the decree and judgment of the Court of first instance are hereby restored and the decree and judgment of the lower appellate Court are hereby set aside. 21. Accordingly, as already specified supra the Second Appeal is hereby allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.