Judgment :- The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1974 of 2001 filed in the Court of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. They pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule property comprised in municipal No.9-4-110/3/107 of Virasat Nagar, Sheikpet, Towlichowki admeasuring 535 sq. yds. According to them, the property was a part of the land in S.No.148/2 of Sheikpet revenue village. The appellants traced their title to the property and pleaded that a house is existing thereon. They pleaded that the respondents are trying to dispossess them without recourse to due process of law. A written statement is filed on behalf of the respondents. An objection was taken on the ground that notice under Section 80 C.P.C., was not issued. It was pleaded that the land is part of the tank bed known as Satham Cheruvu in S.No.195/1 of Sheikpet village. They have explained in detail, the various proceedings including O.S.No.592 of 1999 pending in the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by some other persons. Hence there was dispute about the identity of the land. Through its judgment dated 30.06.2007, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellants filed A.S.No.515 of 2007 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 27.01.2009. Hence the second appeal. Sri V. Jithender Rao, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court categorically found that the appellants herein are in possession of the suit schedule property and still declined the relief of perpetual injunction. He contends that both the Courts concentrated on title and denied the relief. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the other hand, submits that the suit filed by the appellants is speculative in nature and their intention is to grab the Government land, that too, forming part of an irrigation tank. He contends that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have undertaken extensive discussion both as to the identity of the property as well as the title in respect thereof. The suit filed by the appellants was the one for perpetual injunction simplicitor. No claim was made for declaration of title. The trial Court framed only one issue namely, whether, the appellants are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. The suit filed by the appellants was the one for perpetual injunction simplicitor. No claim was made for declaration of title. The trial Court framed only one issue namely, whether, the appellants are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. On behalf of the appellants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Though the parties made an effort before the trial Court to assert their respective title over the land, the scope of the suit does not permit of the same. What becomes relevant is the possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the appellants are in possession of the property claimed by them. As a matter of fact, the respondents did not dispute the fact that the appellants are in possession. The relevant portion of the judgment of the trial Court reads as under. The defendants are not disputing the fact that the land in survey No.148/2 is a patta land. But the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs have occupied the Government land covered by survey No.195/1 which is classified as "Shikam Talab" under the guise of land in survey No.148/2. Thus, there is serious conflict with regard to the identity and location of the suit property. To the same effect is the observation of the lower appellate Court. It reads as under. "The plaintiffs also produced Exs.A.1 to A.9 including sale deed, tax receipts etc. The fact that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property is not in dispute. But according to the defendants, the suit schedule property is comprised in Survey No.195/1, which is government land, DWs.1 and 2 stated in their evidence that the suit schedule property is comprised in survey No.195/1, which is government land." Once the appellants are found to be in possession of the property claimed by them, as a matter of course the relief of perpetual injunction ought to have been granted leaving it always open to the respondents to evict the appellants by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed by law. It can be either by initiating proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or by instituting proceedings under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or other similar proceedings. It can be either by initiating proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or by instituting proceedings under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or other similar proceedings. The denial of relief to a person, who is found to be in possession, that too on the strength of certain documents, cannot be countenanced. It is a different thing that the appellants have to prove their title as and when the situation warrants. The substantial question of law, namely, whether a Civil Court can deny the relief of perpetual injunction to a plaintiff, who proves his possession over the suit schedule property in question, arises for consideration. The same is answered in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgments under appeal are set aside. Consequently, O.S.No.1974 of 2001 is decreed as prayed for subject, however, to condition that it shall be open to the respondents to evict the appellants by initiating the proceedings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.