Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1418 (AP)

K. Sathyamoorthy v. R. Mohanudu

2023-11-01

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.127 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dtd. 13/10/2006, dismissing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.331 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dtd. 28/8/2004. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Original Suit No.331 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.331 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, with a prayer to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant and his men from interfering with the plaint schedule property. 4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, partly decreed the suit by granting permanent injunction and the suit in respect of declaration of title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property is dismissed. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal against the dismissal of title in the suit. The learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.331 of 1997, is as follows: The plaintiff is an Ex-Serviceman and was retired from service in August 1989 and he is a landless poor person and on his application, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem assigned the land to the plaintiff Under D.K.T.No.89/4/1403, dtd. 31/10/1993 and after observing all the formalities, delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff and subsequently the plaintiff has been personally cultivating the said land by raising ground-nut crop. The plaintiff paid land revenue to the Government and also taken crop loan from Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Bangarupalem and discharged the loan. He spent more than Rs.10, 000.00 for reclaiming the land. The plaintiff paid land revenue to the Government and also taken crop loan from Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Bangarupalem and discharged the loan. He spent more than Rs.10, 000.00 for reclaiming the land. Government granted pattadar past book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff by recognizing his possession over the land. ii. The said land was originally assigned to one Karakala Subba Naidu, who died on 24/1/1991. His wife predeceased him. He had no issues. He executed a will deed dtd. 20/12/1979 in favour of one Rajamma, who is the wife of his brother-in-law by bequeathing half share in the schedule mentioned land. Rajamma took possession of the land after the death of Kakarla Subba Naidu. At the time of assigning of suit schedule land i.e., Ac.3.52 cents to Kakarla Subba Naidu, he was living with his younger brother Lingama Naidu. As such, the said Lingama Naidu was enjoying half share in the suit land. On 18/1/1978 Lingama Naidu sold the same to one Easwaramma, who is the wife of his brother-in-law and delivered possession of the same. The said Easwaramma sold the same to one D.Subramanyam Naidu, who is the brother-in-law of Kakarla Subba Naidu. Thus, Subramanyam Naidu and his mother Rajamma entitled the entire Survey number. Subramanyam Naidu and his mother Rajamma migrated to Mekalasanipalle near Punganur, in the year 1993. Prior to their migration, they jointly relinquished their rights over the plaint schedule land to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem. The Mandal Revenue Officer having satisfied about the relinquishment of their rights, accepted the relinquishment and cancelled the patta that was granted earlier. Kakarla Subba Naidu had only one brother i.e., Lingama Naidu. His half share was sold to Easwaramma. Subba Naidu was being looked after by Rajamma and her son Subramanyam Naidu during his last days. On cancellation of the patta in favour of Subba Naidu, it was assigned in the name of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff ploughed the land and made it ready for sowing dry crops, the defendant, who has no right over the plaint schedule property, with an intention to harass the plaintiff, is seriously contemplating to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. When the plaintiff ploughed the land and made it ready for sowing dry crops, the defendant, who has no right over the plaint schedule property, with an intention to harass the plaintiff, is seriously contemplating to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendant, are as follows :- The plaintiff is a rich-landlord having more than Ac.7-00 cents of land near Walajah. The contention of the plaintiff that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem has assigned the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff in the year, 1993, is not correct. Originally, 35 years back Government granted D.K.T. patta in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu. The original patta granted by the Government was lost. Kakarla Subba Naidu had one elder brother, Pedda Subba Naidu and one Younger brother Lingama Naidu. They are nothing to do with the suit schedule property. The defendant is the grand-son of Peada Subba Naidu. Kakarla Subba Naidu was unmarried and living with the family of the defendant. The defendant and his father Chengalaraya Naidu looked after the welfare of Subba Naidu till his death. Kakarla Subba Naidu had executed an un-registered sale deed in a sound and disposing state of mind on 20/7/1990 bequeathing his property in favour of the defendant. Subsequently he died on 24/1/1991. Till his death, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant and his father Chengalaraya Naidu were raising crops in the suit schedule property on behalf of Subba Naidu. After death of Subba Naidu, the defendant became entitled to the suit property and took possession and started cultivating the same. ii. The contention of the plaintiff that Subba Naidu executed a will on 20/12/1979 bequeathing his half-share in the suit property to Rajamma, is false. The total extent belongs to Subba Naidu alone and his brothers have nothing to do with the suit property. The contention of the plaintiff that after the death of Subba Naidu half share was enjoyed by one Rajamma is incorrect. In the year, 1989 itself Rajamma and her family was migrated to Mekalavaripalle. One Lingama Naidu was enjoying half share in the suit property also is a false contention. The alleged sale of half share to Easwaramma on 18/1/1978 by Lingama Naidu is not valid sale. In the year, 1989 itself Rajamma and her family was migrated to Mekalavaripalle. One Lingama Naidu was enjoying half share in the suit property also is a false contention. The alleged sale of half share to Easwaramma on 18/1/1978 by Lingama Naidu is not valid sale. The allegation that, Easwaramma sold the same to D.Subramanyam Naidu is also denied by the defendant. The other contention that Subramanyam Naidu and his mother became entitled to the entire survey number and were in possession and enjoyment of the same is also denied by the defendant. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property from 24/1/1991. The alleged relinquishment of rights by Subramanyam Naidu and Rajamma is untenable. The defendant filed a suit against one Hanumantha Boyadu, who is the father-in- law of the plaintiff in OS.No.188/1997 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Chittoor. After serving of summons the said Hanumantha Boyadu and the plaintiff herein conspired and brought into existence the all the revenue records with the assistance of political persons and with the help of Mandal Revenue Officer. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The patta granted by Revenue Authorities is a created one. In the year, 1995 the defendant applied for issue of patta in his favour along with claim form and photo copy of the will executed by Subba Naidu in his favour. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor questioning the grant of patta in favour of the plaintiff as illegal and the same is pending. The defendant is also paying cist to the suit property regularly. There is no cause of action. The suit for declaration of title is not maintainable, as the suit is based on D.K.T patta, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. 2. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of defendant DW1 to DW4 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked. 10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, partly decreed the suit granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and dismissed the suit with regard to declaration of plaintiff's title over the plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in AS.No.127 of 2005 before the I Additional District Judge's Court, Chittoor, wherein, the following points came up for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction? 2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgment of the lower Court? 11. The learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, i.e., first appellate judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant/appellant and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal of the defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant in A.S.No.127 of 2005 filed the present second appeal before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by mentioning the following substantial questions of law that arise for decision of this Court: 1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit partly granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff without the plaintiff establishing his possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the courts below could rely upon Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 documents which were non-est as the said documents were suspended under Ex.B10 orders? 3. Whether the judgments and the decree are not vitiated since the material evidence of DW4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem was not taken into consideration? 4. Whether the decree of permanent injunction is sustainable against the real owner? 5. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the rightful owner is the government is not vitiated in view of the evidence of DW4? 6. 4. Whether the decree of permanent injunction is sustainable against the real owner? 5. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the rightful owner is the government is not vitiated in view of the evidence of DW4? 6. Whether the Courts below are right in granting injunction against the defendant in the light of the clinching evidence adduced by the defendant? 12. When the matter was before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the aforesaid substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are considered by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 2/3/2007 and admit the second appeal. Therefore, the points relating to substantial questions of law before this Court are: 1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit partly granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff without the plaintiff establishing his possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the courts below could rely upon Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 documents which were non-est as the said documents were suspended under Ex.B10 orders? 3. Whether the judgments and the decree are not vitiated since the material evidence of DW4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem was not taken into consideration? 4. Whether the decree of permanent injunction is sustainable against the real owner? 5. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the rightful owner is the government is not vitiated in view of the evidence of DW4? 6. Whether the Courts below are right in granting injunction against the defendant in the light of the clinching evidence adduced by the defendant? 13. Heard Sri K.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/defendant and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 14. Point Nos.3 to 6: Sri K.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/defendant would contend that both the courts below erred in decreeing the suit partly, filed by the plaintiff, by granting permanent injunction. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that when suit for main relief of declaration is dismissed by the Courts below, the Courts below are not ought to have grant permanent injunction relief. With these submissions, the learned counsel would contend that the judgment of learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor in A.S.No.127 of 2005 is to be set aside by dismissing the permanent injunction granted by the trial Court. 15. With these submissions, the learned counsel would contend that the judgment of learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor in A.S.No.127 of 2005 is to be set aside by dismissing the permanent injunction granted by the trial Court. 15. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would contend that since the plaintiff's possession is proved, the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent in the second appeal would contend that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. The relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property in the suit is dismissed by the trial Court which is not challenged by the plaintiff, therefore, there is no need to decide the relief of declaration of the title of the plaintiff. Therefore, the paramount question that falls for adjudication in this appeal is whether the relief of permanent injunction granted by the trial Court is legally sustainable or not? The law is well settled that for granting simple relief of permanent injunction, strict proof of title is not at all required. 16. The plaintiff in order to prove his case relied on his self testimony as PW1. As per his evidence, the suit schedule property originally stands in the name of K.Subba Naidu in the revenue record and he died in the year 1991 and his wife predeceased him and they are issueless and the said Subba Naidu executed a will dtd. 20/12/1979 in favour of one Rajamma bequeathing half of the schedule property. He further deposed that after the death of Subba Naidu, the said Rajamma was in possession and enjoyment of the half of the suit property, Ex.A1 is the registered will. The remaining half of the suit property was given by Subba Naidu to his brother Lingama Naidu and he was in a possession and enjoyment of the same. He further deposed that subsequently Lingama Naidu sold his property to one Eswaramma, who in-turn sold to Subramanyam Naidu, son of Rajamma and Ex.A2 is the sale deed in favour of Eswaramma. He further deposed that Rajamma and Subramanyam Naidu are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per his evidence, in the year 1993, the above persons surrendered the schedule property to revenue authorities as they migrated to Mekalasanipalli of Punganur Mandal. He further deposed that Rajamma and Subramanyam Naidu are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per his evidence, in the year 1993, the above persons surrendered the schedule property to revenue authorities as they migrated to Mekalasanipalli of Punganur Mandal. It is not in dispute that as per the contention of the plaintiff also the plaint schedule property is originally belongs to the government. The contention of the plaintiff is that on his application, the then Mandal Revenue Officer verified and granted D.K.T patta in his favour over the suit schedule property and Ex.A3 is the said D.K.T. patta and the revenue authorities issued a pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour under Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 and his possession is also recorded in 10(1) adangal, Ex.A6 is the same. 17. A reliance is place by the learned counsel for the appellant in the judgment in between Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (deceased) through L.Rs. and others, (2022) 2 CivCC 507 . and Shivalinge Gowda Vs. Puttaswamy Gowda, (2016) 5 KantLJ 630. The facts in the cited decisions are there was a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and the 1st defendant is the owner of the property. Whereas the facts in the present case are the defendant is not the true owner of the plaint schedule property, the government is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property. Even though the defendant relied on an unregistered will Ex.B1 dtd. 20/7/1990, the earlier registered will relates to the year 1979 is not at all referred in Ex.B1. Ex.B1 will is not proved by the defendant as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. As stated supra, the original owner of the property is government. The alleged testator either in Ex.A1 or in Ex.B1 has no absolute rights over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the cited decision are different to the instant case. 18. Another reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1538 of 1988 and W.A.No.1550 of 1988, dtd. 9/3/1999. The alleged testator either in Ex.A1 or in Ex.B1 has no absolute rights over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the cited decision are different to the instant case. 18. Another reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1538 of 1988 and W.A.No.1550 of 1988, dtd. 9/3/1999. Whereas in the present case, the material on record reveals that this Court suspended the order of Revenue Divisional Officer vide orders passed in W.P.No.17491 of 2005 with a direction to government to dispose of the revision filed by the plaintiff against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The D.K.T. patta issued in favour of plaintiff is not yet cancelled by the government till so far. 19. The case of the defendant is also that the suit schedule property is originally assigned land and it was given to Kakarla Subba Naidu. Even in the written statement and evidence, the defendant categorically stated that the suit schedule land originally assigned land in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu and the same was assigned in his favour by the government. As per the evidence of DW4-Mandal Revenue Officer, as per the revenue record, the D.K.T. patta was issued in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu, originally, for the land to an extent of Ac.3.52 cents in survey No.85/1-A. Therefore, there is no dispute that the plaint schedule property is originally government land and it was assigned to the said Kakarla Subba Naidu. The Government is not a party to the suit, as it is a suit for declaration of title of plaint schedule property, in the absence of government as a party, a declaration relief cannot be granted. But the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction against the others i.e., third parties until he is evicted under due process of law by the government, but the plaintiff has to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property and so also threat of dispossession. 20. The evidence of DW4-Mandal Revenue Officer goes to show that, as per the revenue records, the patta in favour of Subba Naidu is not cancelled and there is no record to show that the government has taken over the possession of the land from Subba Naidu and no notice was served on the original pattadar Kakarla Subba Naidu or his legal representatives for cancellation of patta. As per evidence of DW4, basing on the application of the plaintiff, the D.K.T. patta was granted in favour of plaintiff, without cancelling the earlier patta issued in favour of Subba Naidu under Ex.A3. Ex.A4 is the title deed in favour of the plaintiff dtd. 4/4/1997 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ex.A5 is the pattadar pass book dtd. 4/4/1997 and the same are issued prior to filing of the suit itself by the revenue authorities. Ex.A6 is the 10(1) and No.2 adangal, dtd. 30/6/1996, Ex.A7 is the two cist receipts. Ex.A7 shows that on 13/4/1997, the plaintiff paid land revenue to the government. Ex.A8 is the 10(1) and No.2 adangal for faslis 1404 and 1405 corresponding to year 1994 and 1995. The name of the plaintiff and his possession is noted in Ex.A8 to show the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The name of the plaintiff is shown as the pattadar and enjoyer in revenue adangal in Ex.A8. PW2 supported the evidence of PW1. PW3 and PW4 also stated in their evidence that the plaintiff is cultivating the suit schedule land. 21. Per contra, the defendant relied on the evidence of DW1 to DW4. As per the evidence of DW1, the suit schedule land is originally assigned land belongs to government and it was assigned in the name of Kakarla Subba Naidu and the said Subba Naidu executed Ex.B1 unregistered will dtd. 20/7/1990 and he died on 24/1/1991 and his wife predeceased him and he has no issues. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that the said Subba Naidu executed Ex.A1 registered will in favour of Rajamma, wife of his brother-in-law under Ex.A1 registered will dtd. 20/12/1979 by bequeathing his half share in the property, after the death of Subba Naidu, testator, the Rajamma took possession of the said land and Subba Naidu used to stay with his younger brother Lingama Naidu and Lingama Naidu was enjoying half share in the land and the Lingama Naidu sold the same to Eswaramma and the said Eswaramma sold the same to Subramanyam Naidu and the Subramanyam Naidu and Rajamma are enjoying the entire property and they migrated to Mekalasanipalle and they jointly relinquished their rights of the said land to government and subsequently the said land was assigned to the plaintiff. As seen from the material on record, the said Ex.A1 will dtd. As seen from the material on record, the said Ex.A1 will dtd. 20/7/1979 is executed by Subba Naidu infavour of Rajamma, which was registered in a registrar office, much prior to the alleged Ex.B1 unregistered will, the execution of Ex.A1 is not at all mentioned in Ex.B1. Naturally if subba Naidu executed Ex.B1 alleged will in favour of the defendant, certainly he ought to have mentioned the reference of Ex.A1 will in the alleged Ex.B1. Moreover, in cross examination, nothing was elicited from PW1 about the genuineness of Ex.A1 will. Ex.A1 will is not at all denied by the defendant. There was no suggestion to the plaintiff in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant that Ex.A1 will is not a genuine will. The fact remains Subba Naidu died on 24/1/1991, the suit is filed in the year 1997. 22. The defendant relied on Ex.B2. As per Ex.B2 No.2 adangal dtd. 10/7/1997 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer for the faslis 1401 and 1402, the pattadar is Kakarla Subba Naidu and encroacher is shown as Kakarla Satyamurthy, and the name of Subba Naidu was struck off, the name of Irala Hanumantha Boyadu was rounded off and the name of the defendant is written with pen for the faslis 1401-1402 for the relevant years 1991 and 1992. The same reveals for the faslis 1397 and 1398, the pattadar is Kakarla Subba Naidu and the encroacher is also shown as Kakarla Subba Naidu. Per contra, Ex.A8 No.2 adangal pahani issued in the name of the plaintiff for the faslis 1404 and 1405 corresponding to the years 1994 and 1995 for the suit land by showing his possession. As per Ex.A8 the pattadar is shown as R.Mohana Naidu i.e., the plaintiff herein and enjoyer is also shown as R.Mohanudu. The suit is filed in the year 1997, therefore, the trial Court by giving cogent reasons held that Ex.A8 is the latest document than Ex.B2. As per the evidence of DW4-Mandal Revenue Officer of the concerned Mandal, the patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff and the same was not cancelled till so far and the possession of the plaintiff is noted in the revenue records and the same was not cancelled till so far. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, no importance will be given to Ex.B2 and so also the documents relied on by the defendant i.e., Ex.B3 to Ex.B10. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, no importance will be given to Ex.B2 and so also the documents relied on by the defendant i.e., Ex.B3 to Ex.B10. The defendant relied on the evidence of DW2 to DW4 to prove the Ex.B1 alleged unregistered will dtd. 20/7/1990, which is executed just prior to death of the testator of the alleged will i.e., Kakarla Subba Naidu. As stated supra, the original will was executed by Subba Naidu on 20/7/1979 by bequeathing his half share in the property in favour of Rajamma and after the death of Subba Naidu the said Rajamma took possession of the said land and the said will is a registered will, but there is no whisper about Ex.A1 will which is relates to the year 1979 in the alleged Ex.B1 unregistered will. The case of both the parties is that the schedule property is an assigned land, belongs to government, therefore, no importance will be given to the evidence of DW2 to DW4, since the discrepancy about the non-mentioning of Ex.A1 in the alleged Ex.B1 is not explained by the defendant. More over the defendant is not denying the Ex.A1 registered will executed in favour of Rajamma by Subba Naidu. There was no suggestion to the plaintiff in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant that Ex.A1 is not a genuine will. 23. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.3.52 cents which is a government land and the government had issued a D.K.T. patta in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu for the suit schedule property and subsequently in the year 1997 the patta was issued to the plaintiff. The material on record reveals that the D.K.T. patta was issued by the revenue officials in favour of the plaintiff and by taking into consideration of evidence of Mandal Revenue Officer/DW4 and so also Ex.A3 to Ex.A8, undoubtedly it is clear that the plaintiff is in a possession of the plaint schedule property. The material on record reveals that there was a threat of dispossession by the defendant. In such a case, the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction until he was evicted under a due process of law by the government i.e., true owner of the property. 24. The material on record reveals that there was a threat of dispossession by the defendant. In such a case, the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction until he was evicted under a due process of law by the government i.e., true owner of the property. 24. The law is well settled that even if the plaintiff has no title, if he is in settled possession of the property, even though he is a trespasser, he is entitled for permanent injunction until he is evicted under a due process of law. In the present case, the true owner is a government, the plaintiff is not asking the relief of permanent injunction against the government. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction, against the defendant, until he is evicted under due process of law and he is entitled to continue in possession, because his possession is recorded in revenue records Ex.A3 to Ex.A8, until he is evicted under due process of law. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer recommended the cancellation of D.K.T. patta in favour of the plaintiff. It is a fact that the patta in favour of the plaintiff is not cancelled till so far. The material available on record reveals that this Court suspended the order of Revenue Divisional Officer vide writ petition No.17491 of 2005 with a direction to government to dispose of the revision filed by the plaintiff against the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer. The D.K.T. patta issued in favour of the plaintiff is not cancelled by the government till so far. No patta was granted in favour of the defendant by the revenue authorities and the name of the defendant is also not mutated in revenue records by issuing pattadar pass book and title deed. The material on record reveals that the plaintiff is in a possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property is to be protected until he is evicted under due process of law. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are held in accordance with law and there are no merits in the present appeal. 25. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are held in accordance with law and there are no merits in the present appeal. 25. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.