Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 496 (AP)

V. Srinivasu v. D. Subba Rao

2024-04-29

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 22 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Court, West Godavari at Eluru. Respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: (a) It is pleaded that the plaint schedule properties were originally ancestral property of late Vyshnapu Lakshmana of Rajampalem Village. He had two sons viz., Subba Rao and Srimannarayana and daughter Smt. Duggirala Bullemmayi. After the death of Lakshmana, the properties were partitioned among his sons and their mother and subsequently the brothers viz., Subba Rao and Srimannarayana partitioned their properties in which, the schedule property fell to the share of Srimannarayana. The sister of defendants 3 and 4 viz., Posamma was given in marriage to Srimannarayana and through her, defendants 1 and 2 were born. As such, defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Srimannarayana. After the death of Posamma, the said Srimannarayana again married the sister of plaintiff viz., Vijaya Lakshmi. The said Vijaya Lakshmi had no issues. After the death of first wife of Srimannarayana, defendants 3 and 4 being her brothers raised a dispute for partition and consequently, the properties of Srimannarayana were partitioned between defendants 1 and 2. (b) It is further pleaded that during the life time of Srimannarayana, he executed a Will dated 25-12-2002 in favour of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi i.e. 2nd wife bequeathing all his properties including the plaint schedule property and subsequently he died on 01-01-2003. As such, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to the death of her husband, she lived with the plaintiff who is her brother and he looked after her by providing medical treatment etc., and subsequently she died. (c) It is further pleaded that during the life time of the said Vijaya Lakshmi, she executed a registered Will dated 03-01-2006 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing all her properties in his favour including the plaint schedule property and as such, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. (c) It is further pleaded that during the life time of the said Vijaya Lakshmi, she executed a registered Will dated 03-01-2006 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing all her properties in his favour including the plaint schedule property and as such, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. (d) It is further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 developed a grouse against the plaintiff with the active support of defendants 3 and 4 and they are trying to knock away the plaint schedule property by illegal means by proclaiming in the village. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4 by filing a memo, denying and opposing the averments in the plaint. (a) It is contended that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. It is further contended that on the death of their mother Posamma, there was a family arrangement of the properties in the presence of elders viz., Vyshnapu Rama Rao, Vyshnapu Subba Rao, Gadde Venkateswara Rao etc., and in the said family arrangement before the elders, it was specifically agreed that whatever properties that have been allotted to the share of Srimannarayana should be enjoyed by Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife for their life time and thereafter they have to devolve on the defendants 1 and 2 only. There was an understanding to that effect at the time of family arrangement of properties. In fact, it was an arrangement among the family members of Srimannarayana, his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi and defendants 1 and 2. After the death of Posamma, Srimannarayana married Vijaya Lakshmi but they have no issues even after a long period. In the said family arrangement, Srimannarayana and his wife Vijaya Lakshmi have specifically agreed and understood that all the properties that are allotted to the share of Srimannarayana have to be enjoyed by Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi for their life time and thereafter they should devolve on defendants 1 and 2 only, if Vijaya Lakshmi did not give birth to any children. The agricultural lands are situated in agency area and therefore, there was no contemplation for entering into any registered document. The agricultural lands are situated in agency area and therefore, there was no contemplation for entering into any registered document. (b) It is denied that Srimannarayana executed a Will on 25-12-2002 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the properties to his wife Vijaya Lakshmi. In fact, he had no testamentary power to execute any such Will bequeathing his wife in violation of the terms of the family arrangement. The alleged Will dated 25-12-2002 is neither true nor valid and it was never acted upon and it was never intended to be acted upon and the same is nothing but a concocted one for the purpose of this litigation and the same is not binding on the defendants. So also the alleged Will dated 03-01-2006 is also not a genuine document. Vijaya Lakshmi had no testamentary capacity to execute any Will and to make a testamentary dispossession of the schedule properties. She did not execute the so-called Will dated 03-01-2006 out of her own free will in a sound and disposing state of mind. (c) It is further contended that ever since from the death of Vijaya Lakshmi, the schedule properties have vested in the defendants 1 and 2 and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is denied that the plaintiff looked after the welfare of Vijaya Lakshmi during her last days. Defendants 1 and 2 have also performed last rites and obsequies of Vijaya Lakshmi at Rajampalem Village but not by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the schedule property and he has neither title nor possession over the same at any point of time. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction over the plaint schedule properties against the defendants, as prayed for? and (2) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-11 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 7. and (2) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-11 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 7. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever. 8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants 1 to 4 filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Battula Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel represented on behalf of Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for respondent. 10. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the trial Court without observing Ex.B-1 family arrangement, which is not in dispute, decreed the suit. He would further contend that even though the plaintiff failed to prove that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property, learned trial Judge granted the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and he would further contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the appeal may be allowed by setting the aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge and the appeal may be dismissed. 12. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint in O.S. No. 22 of 2006 before the trial Court? (2) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff? (3) To what extent? 13. Points 1 and 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint in O.S. No. 22 of 2006 before the trial Court? and Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff? (3) To what extent? 13. Points 1 and 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint in O.S. No. 22 of 2006 before the trial Court? and Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff? The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties were originally ancestral property of late Vyshnapu Lakshmana of Rajampalem Village and he had two sons viz., Subba Rao and Srimannarayana and daughter Smt. Duggirala Bullemmayi. The plaintiff further pleaded that after the death of Lakshmana, the properties of Lakshmana were partitioned among his sons and their mother and subsequently the brothers viz., Subba Rao and Srimannarayana partitioned their properties, in which the suit schedule property herein fell to the share of Srimannarayana. The plaintiff further pleaded that Srimannarayana married one Posamma and he gave birth to defendants 1 and 2 through Posamma, as such defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Srimannarayana. After the death of Posamma, the said Srimannarayana again married the sister of plaintiff viz., Vijaya Lakshmi and the said Vijaya Lakshmi had no issues and died intestate. 14. The plaintiff further pleaded that after the death of 1st wife of Srimannarayana, defendants 3 and 4 being her brothers raised a dispute for partition and consequently the properties of Srimannarayana were partitioned between defendants 1 and 2. 15. The plaintiff further pleaded that during the life time of Srimannarayana, he executed a Will dated 25-12-2002 in favour of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi i.e. 2nd wife bequeathing all his properties including the plaint schedule property and subsequently he died on 01-01-2003, as such Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said Vijaya Lakshmi also executed a registered Will dated 03-01-2006 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing all her properties in his favour including the plaint schedule property, as such the plaintiff became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2, who are none other than the sons of Srimannarayana, developed a grudge against the plaintiff with the active support of defendants 3 and 4 and they are trying to knock away the plaint schedule property by illegal means by proclaiming in the village. 16. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2, who are none other than the sons of Srimannarayana, developed a grudge against the plaintiff with the active support of defendants 3 and 4 and they are trying to knock away the plaint schedule property by illegal means by proclaiming in the village. 16. It is the specific case of appellants/defendants 1 and 2 that after the death of their mother Posamma, their father Srimannarayana married Vijaya Lakshmi and after the death of their mother, there was a family arrangement of properties in the presence of elders viz., Vyshnapu Rama Rao, Vyshnapu Subba Rao and Gadde Venkateswara Rao and in the said family arrangement before the elders, it was specifically agreed by their father Srimannarayana that whatever properties that have been allotted to the share of Srimannarayana should have enjoyed by Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife for their life time and thereafter the same shall devolve upon the defendants 1 and 2. The said understanding was also made and the same is reduced into writing. The appellants further pleaded that Srimannarayana died intestate and Vijaya Lakshmi also died intestate and so in view of the arrangement made by their father, defendants 1 and 2 are having right and title in the plaint schedule property after the death of their father and Vijaya Lakshmi, they came into possession of the plaint schedule property and they are in possession of the plaint schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 specifically pleaded that the alleged Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills are forged and fabricated documents. 17. Defendants 1 and 2 further pleaded that they have performed the last rites and obsequies of Srimannarayana at Rajampalem Village and the plaintiff is nothing to do with the suit schedule property and he has neither title nor possession over the same at any point of time. Defendants 1 and 2 further pleaded that they are the legal heirs of late Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi and they are only entitled to the schedule property even in the absence of family arrangement and they pleaded to dismiss the suit. 18. The admitted facts of both the parties are that the plaint schedule properties were originally ancestral property of late Vyshnapu Lakshmana of Rajampalem Village and he had two sons Subba Rao and Srimannarayana. 18. The admitted facts of both the parties are that the plaint schedule properties were originally ancestral property of late Vyshnapu Lakshmana of Rajampalem Village and he had two sons Subba Rao and Srimannarayana. After the death of Lakshmana, the properties were partitioned among his sons and their mother and subsequently Subba Rao and Srimannarayana partitioned their properties, in which the plaint schedule property herein fell to the share of Srimannarayana. It is not in dispute that Srimannarayana married one Posamma and gave birth to defendants 1 and 2 through Posamma and after the death of Posamma, the said Srimannarayana married Vijaya Lakshmi and Vijaya Lakshmi died issueless. It was pleaded by the defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement that Srimannarayana died intestate and his 1st wife also died intestate and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi also died intestate. As stated supra, originally the plaint schedule property belonged to the grandfather of defendants 1 and 2 and the plaint schedule property herein fell to the share of the father of defendants 1 and 2 in a family partition. It is also an admitted fact by both the parties that after the death of 1st wife of Srimannarayana, defendants 3 and 4 being her brothers raised a dispute for partition and consequently the properties of Srimannarayana were partitioned among Srimannarayana and his two sons. 19. The specific case of defendants 1 and 2 is that there was a family arrangement and the same was reduced into writing under Ex.B-1 and it was further pleaded by defendants 1 and 2 that in Ex.B-1 family arrangement, there was a clear recital that after the death of Srimannarayana and Vijaya Lakshmi, the plaint schedule property has to be devolved on the children of Srimannarayana and Vijaya Lakshmi and there was another recital that if Vijaya Lakshmi did not give birth to any children, the entire plaint schedule property shall be devolved upon the defendants 1 and 2 after the death of Vijaya Lakshmi. It is also admitted by both the parties that defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Srimannarayana and Posamma. After the death of Posamma, Srimannarayana married Vijaya Lakshmi and Vijaya Lakshmi died issueless. Therefore, certainly defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of late Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi. Vijaya Lakshmi is the step-mother of defendants 1 and 2. After the death of Posamma, Srimannarayana married Vijaya Lakshmi and Vijaya Lakshmi died issueless. Therefore, certainly defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of late Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi. Vijaya Lakshmi is the step-mother of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff herein is none other than the brother of late Vijaya Lakshmi. The contention of the plaintiff is that Srimannarayana died testate by executing Ex.A-1 unregistered Will dated 25-12-2002 and he died on 01-01-2003 and further, Vijaya Lakshmi executed a registered Will dated 03-01-2006 and died on 29-01-2006. As per the own admissions of P.W.1, after the death of Srimannarayana, the name of 2nd wife of Srimannarayana i.e. Vijaya Lakshmi is not mutated in Revenue records even though Vijaya Lakshmi was alive till 29-01-2006. On the other hand, defendants 1 and 2 filed No. 3 Adangal, Certificate issued by the Village Secretary and those are marked under Exs.B-2 and B-3. The title of the plaintiff is denied by the appellants. 20. In the case on hand, the appellants are disputing Exs.A-1 and A-2 alleged Wills. The contention of appellants is that Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills are fabricated and the same is pleaded by them in the written statement. The learned trial Judge, without framing any issue, came to the conclusion that Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills are genuine Wills in a suit for bare injunction, which is unknown to law. 21. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra. The same is well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments that, "In each and every case, where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff, it is not necessary that in all those cases the plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction." It is also well settled that, "A finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title." 22. In the case on hand, there was a strong contention by the defendants that the plaintiff herein had no title in the plaint schedule property and they have disputed Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills in the written statement itself. Moreover, defendants 1 and 2 are the natural legal heirs of Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi because she died issueless. Unfortunately, even though there is a strong denial by defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement, the trial Court came to the conclusion in its judgment that Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills are genuine in a suit for bare injunction, without framing any issue on Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills. 23. In the case on hand, there is no material on record to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. There is no material on record to show that the testatrix, by name Vijaya Lakhmi in Ex.A-2 alleged Will came into possession of the plaint schedule property after the death of her husband Srimannarayana on 01-01-2003. Furthermore, the entire record reveals that Vijaya Lakshmi died on 29-01-2006. Ex.A-2 alleged Will is strongly denied by defendants 1 and 2. As seen from Ex.A-2, only one attestor signed on Ex.A-2 at serial No. 1. The signature of 2nd attestor is not there in Ex.A-2 at serial No. 2. Furthermore, the date of alleged disputed Will is 03-01-2006, the testatrix on the alleged Will died on 29-01-2006 in the same month. The sole attestor in Ex.A-2 is examined by the propounder of the alleged Will as P.W.6. The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would contend that Ex.A-2 is a registered Will, therefore, importance has to be given to Ex.A-2 Will. The law is well settled that even though the alleged Will is a registered Will, no importance will be given to the registered Will and it cannot be treated as a genuine Will unless it is proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1956(sic 1925). Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under: "68. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under: "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested-If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specially denied." It is evident that in cases where the document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, the same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of the attesting witnesses has been called for the purpose of proving the attestation if any such attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the Court. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act deals with execution of unprivileged Wills and, inter alia, provides that every Testator except those mentioned in the said provision shall execute his Will according to the rules stipulated therein. It reads: "63. Execution of unprivileged wills.-Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules: (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 24. As stated supra, serial No. 2 in the alleged Ex.A-2 Will, the signature of 2nd attestor is not there, the propounder of the Will Ex.A-2 examined the sole attestor in Ex.A-2 as P.W.6. The ingredients of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act are missing in the evidence of P.W.6. Moreover, he is an interested witness to the plaintiff. Furthermore, in addition to the aforesaid circumstances, the date of Ex.A-2 Will is 03-01-2006 and the testatrix died on 29-01-2006 in the same month. As per own admissions of the propounder of the Will Ex.A-2, the testatrix in Ex.A-2 Will Vijaya Lakshmi was suffering from heart ailment and also some blood pressure and she was admitted in the Government Hospital and she was treated for 4 or 5 months and later she was discharged and after one week of the discharge from the hospital, she was in house and later on died. Therefore, it is also one of the strong circumstances to disbelieve Ex.A-2 alleged Will. The propounder of the alleged Will failed to remove the said suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of alleged Ex.A-2 Will. For the foregoing reasons, Ex.A-2 Will is not proved by the propounder of Ex.A-2 alleged Will/plaintiff. 25. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 alleged Will, which is said to have been executed by Srimannarayana in favour of his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi. The said alleged Will Ex.A-1 is strongly disputed by defendants 1 and 2/ appellants herein. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 alleged Will is unregistered Will dated 25-12-2002. 25. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 alleged Will, which is said to have been executed by Srimannarayana in favour of his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi. The said alleged Will Ex.A-1 is strongly disputed by defendants 1 and 2/ appellants herein. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 alleged Will is unregistered Will dated 25-12-2002. The testator of the alleged Will died on 01-01-2003 i.e. within 7 days from the date of alleged Ex.A-1 Will. It is not in dispute by the plaintiff that the 2nd wife of testator i.e. beneficiary under the alleged Ex.A-1 Will was alive till 29-01-2006 for a period of 3 months from the date of death of her husband. As per own admissions of the plaintiff, the said alleged Will was handed over to him by his sister Vijaya Lakshmi. As per the case of the plaintiff, after the death of testator in Ex.A-1 alleged Will, his sister did not get mutated her name in Revenue record. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.A-1 alleged Will is not acted upon subsequent to the death of testator of the alleged Ex.A-1 Will, even though the beneficiary of the alleged Will is alive for a period of 3 years from the date of death of testator of the alleged Ex.A-1 Will. P.W.5 is none other than the husband of sister of Srimannarayana. P.W.5 is own witness of the plaintiff. As per his evidence, Srimannarayana died of illness and he was having some mental depression and bedridden for a period of 20 days prior to his death. As per the case of the plaintiff, the alleged Ex.A-1 unregistered Will is dated 25-12-2002 and the testator died within 7 days i.e. on 01-01-2003. As per the own admissions of P.W.5, the testator of the alleged Ex.A-1 Will Srimannarayana died due to illness and he was having some mental depression and bedridden for a period of 20 days prior to his death. It seems that Srimannarayana suffered mental depression and bedridden since 10-12-2002 till his death. Therefore, the question of executing alleged Ex.A-1 unregistered Will on 25-12-2002 by giving instructions in a fit condition to the scribe is highly doubtful and it is quite absurd. Therefore, there are several suspicious circumstances surrounded the alleged Ex.A-1 Will. The plaintiff failed to remove the aforesaid suspicious circumstances. Therefore, those suspicious circumstances cannot be thrown out simply. Therefore, the question of executing alleged Ex.A-1 unregistered Will on 25-12-2002 by giving instructions in a fit condition to the scribe is highly doubtful and it is quite absurd. Therefore, there are several suspicious circumstances surrounded the alleged Ex.A-1 Will. The plaintiff failed to remove the aforesaid suspicious circumstances. Therefore, those suspicious circumstances cannot be thrown out simply. The learned trial Judge came to wrong conclusion that Exs.A-1 and A-2 Wills are genuine Wills and the plaintiff is having title in the plaint schedule property. It is an admitted fact that no single document is filed by the plaintiff to show his possession in the plaint schedule property, on the other hand the defendants 1 and 2 relied on Exs.B-2 and B-3. 26. In the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs 2008:INSC:395 : (2008) 4 SCC 594 , the Apex Court held as follows: "21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under: (a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, 2005:INSC:290 : (2005) 6 SCC 202 ]). (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, 2005:INSC:290 : (2005) 6 SCC 202 ]). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case." In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge decided the title of the parties in a suit for bare injunction, which is not sustainable under law. The fact remains that there is no issue for title of the parties in the plaint schedule property because the subject matter of the suit is for bare injunction. 27. As stated supra, the nature of the present case on hand is, it is a simple suit for bare injunction, moreover there is a genuine title dispute involved in the case on hand. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for bare injunction. 27. As stated supra, the nature of the present case on hand is, it is a simple suit for bare injunction, moreover there is a genuine title dispute involved in the case on hand. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for bare injunction. Furthermore, no issue is framed with regard to the declaration of title by the trial Court because it is a simple suit for bare injunction. Even assume if Ex.A-1 alleged Will is executed by Srimannarayana, no sanctity can be given to Ex.A-1 Will because the beneficiary under Ex.A-1 Will is his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi and she died issueless. As stated supra, the said Vijaya Lakshmi died intestate. It is not in dispute by both sides that the said Vijaya Lakshmi is the step-mother of defendants 1 and 2 who died issueless. As stated supra, Vijaya Lakshmi is the 2nd wife of Srimannarayana and after the death of 1st wife of Srimannarayana, he married Vijaya Lakshmi. Therefore, defendants 1 and 2 are natural legal heirs of late Srimannarayana and Vijaya Lakshmi. Admittedly, there is no Revenue record to show that the name of Vijaya Lakshmi is mutated in Revenue record. As stated supra, there is no Revenue record to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court committed a blatant error by giving a finding of title of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff even though there is no issue of declaration of title in a suit for bare injunction. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 28. Point No. 3: To what extent? In the result, the appeal is allowed and consequently the suit in O.S. No. 22 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.