JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 04.06.2018, in Original Suit No.239 of 2012, on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the learned Additional District Judge') where under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Suit of the plaintiffs, which was filed seeking to declare the title of the first plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over plaint A schedule property; for declaration of title of plaintiffs 2 to 4 over plaint B schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over plaint B schedule property and further to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the first plaintiff jointly and severally for demolishing the western side compound wall of plaint A schedule property with interest thereon at 24% p.a. and for costs. 2. The parties to the Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the averments in plaint in O.S. No.239 of 2012, is as follows: (i) Plaint A and B schedule properties were originally owned by Vemireddy Subba Rami Reddy and his sons Chandra Mohan Reddy - 4th defendant herein, Sreenivasulu Reddy and Balakota Reddy, residents of Muthukur village. They got partitioned the said properties and other properties vide registered partition deed, dated 07.02.1979. An extent of Ac.1.69 cents in Survey No.485 of Muthukur village which fell to the share of 4th defendant in the above mentioned partition was sold to one Anumakonda Ramadasu under a registered sale deed, dated 19.08.1980. One Vinnakoti Subbarayudu purchased an extent of Ac.0.19 cents of land equivalent to 114 ankanams in S.No.485 of Muthukur village under the registered sale deed, dated 30.11.1988, from Anumakonda Ramadasu. Vinnakoti Hyma, wife of Vinnakoti Subbarayudu, purchased Ac.0.20 cents of land equivalent to 120 ankanams in S.No.485 of Muthukur village under the registered sale deed, dated 30.11.1988, from Anumakonda Ramadasu. The aforesaid Ac.0.19 cents and Ac.0.20 cents along with other neighbouring lands were converted into house site plots and the layout was approved by Muthukur Gram Panchayat under B.A. No.15/2002-2003 and P.R. No.79/1, dated 31.03.2003. The aforesaid Ac.0.19 cents and Ac.0.20 cents along with other neighbouring lands were converted into house site plots and the layout was approved by Muthukur Gram Panchayat under B.A. No.15/2002-2003 and P.R. No.79/1, dated 31.03.2003. Plot No.34 measuring 146 ankanams is the part of the said land of Ac.0.19 cents and Ac.0.20 cents mentioned as above. Southern portion of 113 ankanams out of 146 ankanams was purchased by the first plaintiff under the registered sale deed, dated 18.06.2003, from them for Rs.1,35,600/- and he took possession of the same which is in plaint A schedule. The remaining extent of 33 ankanams in northern portion of Plot No.34 i.e., in plaint B schedule was purchased by the first plaintiff's younger brother Arugunta Venkata Hareesh under the registered sale deed, dated 18.06.2003, from Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Hyma. Since the date of purchase, first plaintiff and the said Arugunta Venkata Hareesh had been in physical possession and enjoyment of plaint A and B schedule properties respectively. They also enclosed the Plot No.34 with thorny fencing and later with barbed wire fencing. Venkata Hareesh died intestate on 11.02.2005 leaving behind his mother - 2nd plaintiff, wife - third plaintiff and minor son - 4th plaintiff. Thus, plaintiffs 2 to 4 succeeded to the estate of deceased Arugunta Venkata Hareesh which includes plaint B schedule property. First plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of plaint B schedule property. Since the first plaintiff is employed in USA as software engineer, he executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 11.01.2010 appointing his father Dr. Arugunta Sreenivasulu Reddy to manage plaint A schedule and to sell the same including filing of suits etc. The deed of GPA was adjudicated by the District Registrar, Nellore on collection of stamp duty of Rs.1,000/-, which is still in force. So, the power of attorney agent of first plaintiff has been looking after and supervising the plaint A schedule site on behalf of first plaintiff. Plaintiffs raised a compound wall of about 4% feet height from the base level and 50 feet length with brick walls at the western boundary of plaint A schedule on 23.04.2012 by engaging a mason viz., Suresh. Plaintiffs raised a compound wall of about 4% feet height from the base level and 50 feet length with brick walls at the western boundary of plaint A schedule on 23.04.2012 by engaging a mason viz., Suresh. The defendants on 28.04.2012 without any manner of right, title interest or possession demolished 50 feet length of the compound wall of 4% feet height from the base level, constructed at the cost of Rs.30,000/-, at the western boundary of plaint A schedule property. The power of attorney of the first plaintiff came to know about demolition of the said wall through one Suresh - mason. He was informed that the defendants and their men demolished the said wall and placed a board stating that the plaint A and B schedule properties belongs to defendants 1 and 3. However, the general power of attorney agent of first plaintiff removed the said board. (ii) Second defendant is the maternal uncle of first defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are the natives of Muthukur village. The defendants have no document in their favour to show that plaint A and B schedule properties belong to them but they are proclaiming that they will trespass and occupy the plaint A and B schedule properties. 4. The total extent of the land in Survey No.485 of Muthukur village is Ac.15.95 cents. It was subdivided into 485/1A, 485/1B, 485/2A and 485/2B and the extent of lands in Survey No.485/1A is Ac.4.72 cents. Ac.6.23 cents is in S.No.485/1B; Ac.1.25 cents is in S.No.485/2A and Ac.3.75 cents is in S.No.485/2B. The said sub-division took place as some portions of land were surrendered by the respective owners towards their surplus in their land ceiling cases. The plaint schedule site is in S.No.485/1A of Muthukur village after sub-division. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore has issued a certificate, dated 26.06.2012, to that effect. Hence, the Suit for declaration, consequential permanent injunction and for a direction to pay the damages. 5. The second defendant remained ex parte before the trial Court. 6. The first defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and her contention, in brief, is that 4th defendant got the lands in S.Nos.485 and 486 of Muthukuru village to an extent of Ac.13.00 cents and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. 6. The first defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and her contention, in brief, is that 4th defendant got the lands in S.Nos.485 and 486 of Muthukuru village to an extent of Ac.13.00 cents and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He sold away an extent of Ac.1.69 cents to one Anumakonda Ramadasu under a registered sale deed, dated 19.08.1980, and to the west of the said land, he sold away land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents to one Cheemakurthi Kasturi. To the east of Anumakonda Ramadasu, fourth defendant was still having land in an extent of 124 ankanams for which Krishnapatnam road is the southern boundary. Out of 124 ankanams, 4th defendant sold away a site in an extent of 40 ankanams to one Duvvuru Srinivasulu Reddy, who is the father of 1st defendant, under a registered sale deed, dated 30.08.1984. He sold 28 ankanams to one Ponnuru Raghavaiah, third defendant herein, under a registered sale deed dated 30.08.1994. Further, he sold away the site in an extent of 16 ankanams to one Valluru Hymavati, who is not a party to the suit, vide registered sale deed, dated 30.08.1994. After the death of Duvvuru Srinivasulu Reddy intestate, she being the legal heir inherited the same and she has been in uninterrupted possession thereof. The suit schedule property, as alleged by the plaintiffs, is not in existence. The alleged layout is false, fabricated and is not valid. The so called vendors of the land whose names were shown in the copy of layout are not having a total extent of the land as shown in the said layout. The total site of the layout is shown as 1712.15 ankanams. If the site shown in each plot is summed up, it comes to total extent of 1735.35 ankanams. It is for the plaintiffs to show the total extent of the land purchased by all the alleged owners of the land whose names were shown in the layout. All those people are necessary parties to the suit and their non-joinder is fatal and the Suit is not maintainable. One Gadamsetty Anith Kumari, Gadamsetty Chandrasekhar and Sarabu Obaiah are shown in the alleged layout as some of the owners of the said lay out property. All those people are necessary parties to the suit and their non-joinder is fatal and the Suit is not maintainable. One Gadamsetty Anith Kumari, Gadamsetty Chandrasekhar and Sarabu Obaiah are shown in the alleged layout as some of the owners of the said lay out property. They all have jointly purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents which was purchased by one Cheemakurthi Kasturi from 4th defendant. The aforesaid three persons sold away house site plots bearing Nos.1 to 17 in total extent of 668 ankanams. There are lay-out roads in the said layout on the east and north of the said plots which is in an area of 379.35 ankanams. It is for the plaintiffs to prove how it was possible for them to sell 1047.35 ankanams as they purchased only 600 ankanams. So, the plaintiffs are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. The third defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and as evident from his written statement his case is replica as that of the first defendant, as mentioned in his written statement, as such it need not be extracted here. 8. The fourth defendant got filed a written statement which is also same as that of the contentions of first defendant. So it also need not be extracted here. 9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial before the trial Court: 1) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over plaint A schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are entitled for declaration of title over plaint B schedule property? 3) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property? 4) Whether the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are entitled for permanent injunction in respect of B schedule property? 5) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to DW.4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. Though the chief-examination affidavit of DW.3 was filed but later it was eschewed from consideration. 11. 5) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to DW.4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. Though the chief-examination affidavit of DW.3 was filed but later it was eschewed from consideration. 11. The learned Additional District Judge on conclusion of trial and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 12. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, the un-successful plaintiffs therein filed the present Appeal. 13. Now, in deciding the present Appeal, the points that arise for determination are as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge proved their entitlement to get declaration of title in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties within the boundaries as described in the plaint schedule as prayed for and further proved their entitlement for a permanent injunction? 2) Whether the first plaintiff proved his entitlement to claim damages in the manner as pleaded? 3) Whether the judgment, dated 04.06.2018, in O.S. No.239 of 2012 is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT Nos.1 to 3: 14. PW.1 before the trial Court was no other than the General Power Attorney holder of first plaintiff who adverted to the case of the plaintiffs in tune with the pleadings in his chief-examination affidavit. Through his examination-in-chief, Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 11.01.2010. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of registered partition deed dated 07.02.1979. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19.08.1980 executed by 4th defendant in favour of A. Ramadasu. Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.11.1988 executed by A. Ramadasu in favour of Vinnakoti Subbarayudu. Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.11.1988 executed by A. Ramadasu in favour of Vinnakoti Hyma. Ex.A-6 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003 executed by Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Vinnakoti Hyma in favour of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A-7 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003 executed by Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Vinnakoti Hyma in favour of Venkata Hareesh. Ex.A-8 is the death extract of Venkata Hareesh. Ex.A-6 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003 executed by Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Vinnakoti Hyma in favour of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A-7 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003 executed by Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Vinnakoti Hyma in favour of Venkata Hareesh. Ex.A-8 is the death extract of Venkata Hareesh. Ex.A-9 is the photos 19 in number with CD. Ex.A-10 is the letter from the RDO, Nellore dated 26.06.2012 vide L.R (K) No.2065/2012 addressed to Sub-Registrar, Muthukur. 15. Plaintiffs got filed the chief-examination affidavit of PW.2, who is no other than the vendor of the plaintiffs namely Vinnakoti Subbarayudu, in support of their case. The sum and substance of his evidence is that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.19 cents in S.No.485 and his wife Vinnakoti Hyma purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in S.No.485 from Anumakonda Ramadasu under two separate registered sale deeds dated 30.11.1988. The said lands along with other neighbouring lands were converted into house site plots and they sold away plaint A and B schedule properties to the first plaintiff and his younger brother - Arugunta Venkata Hareesh. 16. The plaintiffs got filed the chief-examination affidavit of PW.3, a third party, and his evidence is that he constructed a compound wall of about 4% feet height from the base level and 50 feet length with bricks at the western boundary of 146 ankanams of site in Muthukur village and the defendants demolished it on 28.04.2012 by 08:00 a.m. 17. On behalf of the defendants, they got filed the chief-examination affidavit of DW.1, who is no other than the first defendant, who put forth the facts in tune with her written statement. According to her, Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of sale deed, dated 30.08.1994, executed in favour of Duvvuri Srinivasulu Reddy (her father). 18. Further, chief-examination affidavit of DW.2 was also filed for the defendants and DW.2 is no other than the 3rd defendant who put forth the facts in tune with his written statement. According to him, Ex.B-2 is the registration extract of registered sale deed, dated 12.09.1994, under which he purchased the property from the 4th defendant. 19. Though the chief-examination affidavit of DW.3 was also filed for the defendants and DW.3 is no other than the 2nd defendant, later it was eschewed from consideration. 20. According to him, Ex.B-2 is the registration extract of registered sale deed, dated 12.09.1994, under which he purchased the property from the 4th defendant. 19. Though the chief-examination affidavit of DW.3 was also filed for the defendants and DW.3 is no other than the 2nd defendant, later it was eschewed from consideration. 20. The chief-examination affidavit of DW.4 was filed and DW.4 is no other than the 4th defendant who put forth the facts in tune with his chief-examination affidavit. 21. During the course of hearing M/s. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would canvass the facts in tune with the pleadings of the plaintiffs. She would strenuously contend that though there was no issue at all with regard to the validity or otherwise of Ex.A-1 - registered General Power of Attorney in the name of first plaintiff and though it was not in dispute, the learned Additional District Judge erroneously made adverse findings in this regard without there being any issue as to the validity of GPA in the name of PW.1 as such findings of the learned Additional District Judge are not at all tenable. The plaint A schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff. Plaint B schedule property was purchased by Arugunta Venkata Hareesh, who died and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are no other than his legal heirs. There was no dispute about the traces of title to contend that the plaintiffs had valid title over plaint A and B schedule properties. She would rely upon the evidence of PW.2, who is the so called vendor of the property. The defendants did not dispute the fact that the vendor of the plaintiffs i.e., PW.2 and his wife purchased the property. Without there being any reason at all, the defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs that there was layout covering plaint A and B schedule properties. Plaintiffs exhibited the sale deeds in their names before the learned Additional District Judge. By virtue of the evidence of PW.2, the vendor of the plaintiffs, they were able to establish their title. The sale deeds in the name of the plaintiffs were enclosed with copy of the layout plan identifying the plaint A and B schedule properties. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge were nothing but perverse and irregular. The learned Additional District Judge overlooked the fact that possession follows the title. The sale deeds in the name of the plaintiffs were enclosed with copy of the layout plan identifying the plaint A and B schedule properties. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge were nothing but perverse and irregular. The learned Additional District Judge overlooked the fact that possession follows the title. When the plaintiffs had a valid title by virtue of Exs.A-6 and A-7, the learned Additional District Judge made irrelevant findings as if the plaintiffs did not prove Ex.A-1 -GPA in the name of PW.1. Absolutely, for obvious reasons, the defendants denied the existence of the layout. The plaintiffs, to prove a valid title, have chosen to examine PW.2, whose evidence is fully convincing. The defendants miserably failed to probabilize their contentions. There was no dispute about the title of the 4th defendant over an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in survey No.485/1A, who sold away the same in favour of one Anumakonda Ramadasu and from whom Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and his wife Vinnakoti Hyma purchased two bits and it was converted into a layout and out of it, the suit schedule property in Plot No.34 was sold out to Arugunta Sree Praveen and Arugunta Venkata Hareesh. All these facts were quietly established by the plaintiffs with consistent evidence. The learned Additional District Judge erroneously upheld the contentions of the defendants by accepting their contention that the plaintiffs did not establish the title of the property. At any rate, the overall appreciation of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge was not on proper basis and with erroneous reasons the Suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed though the defendants failed to probabilize their contentions. She would submit that the defendants have no right, whatsoever, over the plaint A and B schedule properties. The property claimed by them has nothing to do with the plaint schedule properties. With the above said contentions, she would submit that the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 22. Mr. V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, would contend that the plaintiffs did not mark the copy of the layout to show and to prove the existence of plaint A and B schedule properties. What was enclosed with Exs.A-6 and A-7 was not the copy of approved layout. The so called layout set up by the plaintiffs is nothing but false. What was enclosed with Exs.A-6 and A-7 was not the copy of approved layout. The so called layout set up by the plaintiffs is nothing but false. The authenticated copy of the layout did not see the light of the day. There was no identity of the property on ground within the boundaries mentioned in plaint A and B schedule. Plaintiffs have no reason as to why they did not summon the authenticated copy of the layout from the concerned. The GPA does not contain the signature and the plaintiffs did not produce the original thereof. The boundaries to the plaint schedule properties were not established. Plaintiffs did not join some of the parties, whose presence is necessary. The plaintiffs did not take any steps to prove the identity of the plaint schedule properties. There was admission made by PW.2, the so called vendor of the plaintiffs, in cross-examination that his vendor sold away different properties with same boundaries in favour of various persons. There was a serious dispute with regard to identity of the property claimed by the plaintiffs under Exs.A-6 and A-7. The learned Additional District Judge rightly made a finding that the plaintiffs did not prove Ex.A-1 and further did not establish the identity of the property. He would submit that in a Suit for declaration of title, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to establish the identity of the property. Though the vendor of the plaintiffs had purchased the property from Anumakonda Ramadasu but what is material is that he was alleged to have converted the property into plots along with other owners and other owners did not execute any sale deeds in the name of the plaintiffs. So, there was a bona-fide dispute raised by the defendants. The learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the Suit of the plaintiffs as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same. With the above submissions, he would seek to dismiss the Appeal Suit 23. M/s. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, during the course of reply, reiterated her contentions and would further submit that though the plaintiffs filed a copy of layout but it could not be marked for various reasons and even the defendants did not take any steps to establish their contentions and they have no semblance of right to make a claim over the plaint A and B schedule properties. According to PW.2, plaint A and B schedule properties were part and parcel of the land purchased by him and his wife as such there was identity of the property. 24. The admitted facts are that one Vemireddy Subbarami Reddy, his sons viz., Chandramohan Reddy (D-4), Sreenivasulu Reddy and Bala Kota Reddy, residents of Muthukur village got partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed, dated 07.02.1979 under Ex.A-2; according to which, one of the property that fell to the share of Chandramohan Reddy i.e., fourth defendant was an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in S.No.485. Subsequently, the said Chandramohan Reddy executed a sale deed, dated 19.08.1980, copy of which is Ex.A-3, in favour of one Anumakonda Ramadasu conveying the said extent of Ac.1.69 cents in his favour. Further, the admitted facts are that the said Ramadasu sold away the property covered under the original of Ex.A-4 i.e., an extent of Ac.0.19 cents out of the said Ac.1.69 cents in favour of one Vinnakoti Subbarayudu. Further, the said Ramadasu also executed the original of Ex.A-5 selling away an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in the aforesaid survey number in favour of Vinnakoti Hyma, wife of Vinnakoti Subbarayudu. To this extent, the facts were not in dispute. Further, the factum of execution of Exs.A-6 and A-7 sale deeds for selling away the alleged extents in Plot No.34 in favour of the first plaintiff and his younger brother - Anumakonda Venkata Hareesh is not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the identity of the property covered under Exs.A-6 and A-7 which is no other than the plaint A and B schedule properties. 25. Now this Court has to see as to whether plaintiffs before the trial Court were able to establish the identity of the property covered under Exs.A-6 and A-7. As seen from Ex.A-6, which is the copy of the sale deed stood in the name of first plaintiff, the schedule property was described in Survey No.485 in an extent of 113 ankanams or 755.857 square meters out of 146 ankanams in Plot No.34 of Survey No.485. The schedule reads that the said plot was covered by a layout. Coming to Ex.A-7, the schedule depicts the extent as that of 33 ankanams or 220.737 square meters out of 146 ankanams in Plot No.34 in Survey No.485 covered by a layout. The schedule reads that the said plot was covered by a layout. Coming to Ex.A-7, the schedule depicts the extent as that of 33 ankanams or 220.737 square meters out of 146 ankanams in Plot No.34 in Survey No.485 covered by a layout. Literally, the schedule in Exs.A-6 and A-7 did not whisper as to the name of panchayat or any authority which approved the layout, in whose name the layout was standing and on which date it was approved. Even Exs.A-6 and A-7 were not enclosed with a copy of the layout. What they were enclosed with is only a sketch of the so called property. As seen from the plaint averments, the contention of the plaintiffs is that the land of Ac.0.19 cents and Ac.0.20 cents along with the neighbouring lands were converted into house site plots and layout was approved by Muthukur gram panchayat under B.A.No.15/2002-2003 and P.R.No.79/1, dated 31.03.2003. Admittedly, it is a fact that the plaintiffs did not bring the so called layout which was pleaded in the plaint in their evidence. 26. Turning to the cross-examination of PW.1, the GPA holder of the first plaintiff, he deposed that Plot No.34 is situated in Survey No.485/1A. The lands of Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Vinnakota Hyma in an extent of Ac.0.19 cents and Ac.0.20 cents along with the neighbouring lands were made into plots as such the plaint schedule properties are the part and parcel of the said properties. The owners of other plots in the layout in Survey No.485 did not execute sale deed in his favour. He did not get the plaint schedule property surveyed at the time of his purchase. He purchased plots in the land belonging to Subbarayudu and Hymavathi. However, he cannot say whether the plaint schedule property is situated in the lands belonging to Subbarayudu and Hymavathi. He does not know whether there is any document between Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Hyma and other owners, whose lands were converted as layout to the effect that Plot No.34 was allotted to Hyma and Subbarayudu. He obtained certified copy of approval proceedings in Muthukur gram panchayat in B.A.No.15/2002-2003 and P.R. No.79/1 but he did not file the same in the Court. He denied that Survey No.485 was not made into plots and no layout was sanctioned by Muthukur gram panchayat. 27. He obtained certified copy of approval proceedings in Muthukur gram panchayat in B.A.No.15/2002-2003 and P.R. No.79/1 but he did not file the same in the Court. He denied that Survey No.485 was not made into plots and no layout was sanctioned by Muthukur gram panchayat. 27. By virtue of the above admissions made by PW.1 in crossexamination, it emerges that apart from the lands claimed to be purchased by Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Hyma other lands were also taken together to form the so called layout. If that be the case, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to explain as to where the plaint schedule properties are situated whether they are located in the lands belonging to Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Hyma or other lands. However, admissions made by PW.1 means that he cannot say as to whether plaint schedule properties are located in the land belonging to Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Hyma. He admitted that other land owners, whose lands were also taken to form the so called layout, did not execute any sale deed. Even he had no proof to show that Plot No.34 fell to the share of Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Hyma. It is to be noted that when the plaintiffs made a pleading as to the name of panchayat which issued the layout and the number of layout in the plaint averments, it is shrouded in mystery as to why he did not bring the same into evidence. When it is the contention of the defendants that the suit schedule properties were not covered by any layout and the allegations of the plaintiffs in this regard are all false, plaintiffs kept quiet without bothering to bring the original layout into evidence to establish the identity of the property. 28. As seen from the plaint averments as well as the chief-examination affidavit of PW.1, a specific pleading was made at Para No.10 of the plaint which runs as follows: '10. It is learnt that the total extent of S.No.485 of Muthukur village is Acs.15-95 cents. The said Survey number was sub divided into 485/1A, 485/1B, 485/2A and 485/2B by the revenue department. The extent of land in S.No.485/1A is Acs.4-72 cents; S.No.485/1B is Acs.6-23 cents; S.No.485/2A is Acs.1-25 cents and S.No.485/2B is Acs.3-75 cents. The said sub division took place as some portions of land was surrendered by the respective owners towards their surplus in their land ceiling cases. The extent of land in S.No.485/1A is Acs.4-72 cents; S.No.485/1B is Acs.6-23 cents; S.No.485/2A is Acs.1-25 cents and S.No.485/2B is Acs.3-75 cents. The said sub division took place as some portions of land was surrendered by the respective owners towards their surplus in their land ceiling cases. The plaint schedule mentioned site is in S.No.485/1A of Muthukur village after sub division. The Revenue Divisional officer, Nellore has issued a certificate dated 26-6-2012 to that effect. Thus plaint schedule mentioned vacant site is in S.No.485/1A after sub-division.' 29. During the course of cross-examination with regard to these pleadings he deposed that he did not verify the sub-division of survey mentioned in his chief-examination affidavit. 30. Exs.A-6 and A-7 reveals that the so called property claimed to be purchased by the plaintiffs is located in S.No.485 in the plaint schedule. Now, the property is shown as located in S.No.485/1A. There is no pleading as to whether sub-division of the property purchased by the plaintiffs was made prior to the alleged layout or subsequent to the alleged layout. So, it is very clear that the plaintiffs did not bring any piece of document in evidence to show the sub-division numbers as alleged in the plaint averments and in the chief-examination affidavit. 31. As seen from Ex.A-4, it is a copy of sale deed, dated 30.11.1988, executed by Anumakonda Ramadasu in favour of Vinnakoti Subbarayudu. Ex.A-5 is the copy of sale deed, dated 30.11.1988, executed by Anumakonda Ramadasu in favour of Vinnakota Hyma. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that Vinnakota Subbarayudu purchased Ac.0.19 cents and Vinnakota Hyma purchased Ac.0.20 cents from Ramadasu on one and the same day i.e., on 30.11.1988 but under two separate registered sale deeds. He does not know whether on the same day or subsequently Vinnakoti Sekhar, Vinnakoti Lakshmi Prasad, Vinnakoti Madhu, Vinnakoti Lalitha and some others purchased land from Anumakonda Ramadasu. He admitted that he had gone through the schedule mentioned in Exs.A-4 and A-5. He deposed that the boundaries of Ex.A-4 are: east - land of 4th defendant; south - Nellore Krishnapatnam road, west - land belonging to Cheemakurthi Kasturi and north - irrigation canal. He deposed that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-3 are correct and similar to the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-4. He does not know whether the schedule in Ex.A-4 is misleading as it was not possible to have the boundaries of Ac.1-69 cents under Ex.A-3. He deposed that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-3 are correct and similar to the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-4. He does not know whether the schedule in Ex.A-4 is misleading as it was not possible to have the boundaries of Ac.1-69 cents under Ex.A-3. He admitted that the boundaries in Ex.A-5 are also same as the boundaries given in Exs.A-3 and A-4. He does not know whether the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed executed by Ramadasu in favour of V. Sekhar on 30.11.1988 are same as boundaries given in Ex.A-5. 32. It is to be noted that as this Court already pointed out Ex.A-3 was the copy of sale deed, dated 19.08.1980, executed by Vemireddy Chandramohan Reddy having an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in favour of Anumakonda Ramadasu. Even if that is the situation it is not understandable as to how self same boundaries were mentioned in Exs.A-4 and A-5, copy of the sale deeds standing in the name of Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Vinnakota Hyma. So, by virtue of the above answers deposed by PW.1 in cross-examination, even the identity of the property said to be purchased by Vinnakota Subbarayudu and Vinnakota Hyma is doubtful. 33. According to the evidence available on record, first plaintiff herein filed O.S. No.41 of 2012 against the third defendant herein and another and later not pressed it. During the further chiefexamination of PW.1 on 05.12.2016, Exs.A-11 to A-14 were marked. Ex.A-11 is the original registered sale deed executed by Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Vinnakoti Hyma in favour of Arugunta Sree Praveen, dated 18.06.2003. Ex.A-12 is the original registered sale deed executed by Vinnakoti Subbarayudu and Vinnakoti Hyma in favour of Arugunta Venkata Harish dated 18.06.2003. Ex.A-13 is the certified copy of decree in O.S. No.41 of 2012, dated 13.07.2012, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. Ex.A-14 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.41 of 2012 dated 13.07.2012 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. During cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that earlier he filed O.S. No.41 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in respect of the same subject matter and obtained ex parte injunction. Ex.A-14 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.41 of 2012 dated 13.07.2012 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. During cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that earlier he filed O.S. No.41 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in respect of the same subject matter and obtained ex parte injunction. In his cross-examination he admitted that after obtaining injunction with aid of the Police, he tried to fix boundaries for some property on the western side of Axis Bank and in that connection he tried to get measurements through Surveyor. He further admitted that he filed the present Suit only after coming to know from the District Surveyor that it is not possible to identify the property only basing on the documents. He denied that the Suit is not maintainable as the suit schedule property is not identifiable. He admitted that the above said Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. He further admitted that on his request in the year 2012, RDO appointed a Surveyor to survey the suit schedule property and to identify the same. So, the above admissions made by PW.1 further reveals that even the District Surveyor was not able to identify the property. 34. In a Suit for declaration of title, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to stand on their own legs to establish the identity of the property. Mere execution of originals of Exs.A-6 and A-7 in favour of the first plaintiff and his younger brother - Arugunta Venkata Hareesh respectively does not mean that the property claimed by the plaintiffs is identifiable. When the plaintiffs pleaded that the property covered under plaint A and B schedule is covered by a valid approved layout, the so called layout has not seen the light of the day. There is no explanation from the plaintiffs as to why they could not produce the best evidence to establish the identity of the property. On the other hand, various admissions made by PW.1 during cross-examination means that Ramadasu executed originals of Exs.A-4 and A-5 relating to two chunks of the property with the self same boundaries and the same boundaries were there in Ex.A-3 also. On the other hand, various admissions made by PW.1 during cross-examination means that Ramadasu executed originals of Exs.A-4 and A-5 relating to two chunks of the property with the self same boundaries and the same boundaries were there in Ex.A-3 also. Apart from this, admission of PW.1 during cross-examination means that on the strength of ex parte injunction in O.S. No.41 of 2012, he tried to fix up the boundaries and even the District Surveyor expressed his inability to identify the plaint schedule property basing on the documents available. The plaintiffs sought to prove the boundaries basing on the available sale deeds with them. Even during the course of trial before the learned Additional District Judge, plaintiffs did not take any other steps to get a comprehensive survey so as to identify the plaint schedule property. In my considered view, plaintiffs, for the reasons best known to them, withheld the best evidence available with them i.e., the so called approved layout, whose reference was made in the pleadings to establish the identity of the property. The learned Additional District Judge rightly looked into all these aspects. In my considered view, the evidence on record is not at all sufficient to establish the identity of plaint A and B schedule properties. Though the defendants 1, 3 and 4 claimed property under Exs.B-1 to B-3, even there is no whisper from their case as to whether the so called house sites claimed by them is covered under a valid layout. However, their contention is also that under the guise of ex parte injunction plaintiffs tried to encroach their property. In a suit of this nature, as this Court already pointed out, plaintiffs have to succeed on their own strength and they cannot succeed basing on the weakness of the defence. 35. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Additional District Judge appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. However, absolutely, there was no dispute with regard to the fact that PW.1 is no other than father of the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff is in abroad as such he is representing the first plaintiff as GPA. Though the findings of the learned Additional District Judge commenting against Ex.A-1 are not tenable but even a positive finding about Ex.A-1 is not going to advance the case of the plaintiffs to establish identity of the plaint schedule property. 36. Though the findings of the learned Additional District Judge commenting against Ex.A-1 are not tenable but even a positive finding about Ex.A-1 is not going to advance the case of the plaintiffs to establish identity of the plaint schedule property. 36. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that as the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish identity of plaint A and B schedule properties, they are not at all entitled to seek a declaration of title in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties, permanent injunction and also the damages in respect of plaint A schedule property. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional District Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of plaint A and B schedule properties. Hence, the judgment is not liable to be interfered with. 37. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs confirming the decree and judgment, dated 04.06.2018, in O.S. No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Nellore. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.