JUDGMENT : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondents are the defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff died. Her legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos. 2 to 6 by an order dated 25.04.2023 in I.A. No.3 of 2023. Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 died and respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who are already on record, were shown as her legal representatives. Respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6/defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 also died. Their legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos. 7 to 10, 11 to 13 and 14 and 15 respectively by an order dated 09.07.2013 in S.A.M.P. No.1908 of 2008. 2. On 20.10.2000 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the non-reading of the documents Exs.B.3 to B.6 and the plaint schedule by the appellate Court which disclose that Exs.B.3 to B.6 do not relate to the suit schedule property is a grave error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether under law, Exs.B.1 and B.2 are inadmissible evidence for the non-examination of the alleged photographer? 3. Whether Exs.B.3 to B.5 certificates are inadmissible in evidence without examining the MRO concerned? 4. Whether the appellate Court committed a grave error of law in not presuming that possession follows title? 5. Whether under law, the appellate Court ought to have granted the relief of possession though not specifically prayed for, by collecting the court fee when the defendants are unlawful land-grabbers? 6. Whether under law, the permission granted by the appellate Court to file a fresh suit for possession in spite of the bar under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. instead of ordering delivery of possession against the land- grabbers is improper under law? 3. Sri Srinivas Emani, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel for respondents submitted arguments. 4. To appreciate the contentions that have come up in this appeal, the following aspects are to be noticed: An extent of 52 2/9 square yards of site in T.S. No.1018 in block No. 30 of Maharanipeta in Upper Relli Veedhi within Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limits is the property in dispute and is referred in detail in the plaint schedule. This property originally belonged to Sri Inti Ramaswamy. This property originally belonged to Sri Inti Ramaswamy. By executing Ex.A.3-registered gift deed dated 02.07.1949 he donated the property. The donees thereafter having acquired possession and title over the said property enjoyed the same for several decades and thereafter they executed Ex.A.1-registered gift deed dated 13.11.1985 in favour of Smt. Chenna Bhooloka. She took delivery of possession of the property under Ex.A.1. The said Smt. Chenna Bhooloka laid O.S. No.1436 of 1985 before learned III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. Paragraph No.VI contains the prayer in the plaint. The same is extracted here: "The plaintiff, therefore, prays the Honourable Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants: a) declaring the plaintiff's title to and possession of the suit property; b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and supporters from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff possession and enjoyment of the suit property or from raising any structures or constructions etc., thereon; c) granting costs of the suit to the plaintiff; and d) granting such other and further reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 5. In the plaint she asserted her title and possession over her property and stated that originally there was a shed in the property and in the said locality there was outbreak of fire and several thatched sheds in that locality as well as the shed in the plaint schedule property were gutted in the fire. Since 04.12.1985 the defendants have been attempting to encroach into this property and cause loss to her. It is in those circumstances seeking confirmation of her title and seeking confirmation of her possession and seeking a protective relief of injunction she laid the suit. 6. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and additional written statement and the remaining defendants adopted the same. Defendants denied the assertions in the plaint and denied possession and title claimed by the plaintiff. They claimed title in themselves and asserted possession of the property for four decades. They also claimed prescriptive title by adverse possession. They prayed dismissal of the suit. 7. On the rival contentions, the learned trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable under law? 3. They also claimed prescriptive title by adverse possession. They prayed dismissal of the suit. 7. On the rival contentions, the learned trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable under law? 3. Whether the Court fee paid is not correct? 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? 5. Whether the defendant is entitled for exemplary costs? 6. To what relief? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? 8. During the trial, there was the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and there was the evidence of DWs.1 to 5 and Exs.B.1 to B.10. There was also the evidence in the form of Exs.X.1 and X.2. 9. The registered gift deed executed by Sri Inti Ramaswamy is Ex.A.3. The registered gift deed standing in favour of plaintiff is Ex.A.1. The pleadings and evidence on both sides admitted that Sri Inti Ramaswamy was the original title holder of this property. Learned trial Court having considered the entire evidence and having considered the rival contentions concluded that plaintiff proved her title and also the title of her predecessors in interest as could be seen from Exs.A.1 and A.3. Therefore, it declared the title of the plaintiff. Coming to the assertions of the defendants about their rival claim of title, it recorded that defendants did not produce any evidence indicating how they got the title. It examined the case of the defendants as they claimed succession or inheritance through Inti Ramaswamy and recorded that they did not succeed or inherit the property and by virtue of Ex.A.3-gift deed Sri Inti Ramaswamy was divested of any title during his own lifetime and therefore, defendants did not get any property from him. It recorded that there were no other documents filed by the defendants disclosing that Sri Inti Ramaswamy gave the property to them. Thus, it recorded that the defendants had no title over the property. It then assessed the evidence concerning rival possession claimed by the parties. With reference to the adverse possession claimed by the defendants, it found no merit in it. Thus, it recorded that the defendants had no title over the property. It then assessed the evidence concerning rival possession claimed by the parties. With reference to the adverse possession claimed by the defendants, it found no merit in it. It further observed that plaintiff though proved her title failed to show through any document her actual possession of the property. It was in those circumstances it recorded that since the plaintiff proved her title and possession follows and thus observed that plaintiff could be said to have been in possession of the property constructively. It answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and granted all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. 10. Aggrieved by that, defendants preferred A.S. No.98 of 1996 before learned III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned first appellate Court settled the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the property or the defendants are the owners and possessors of the property? and 2. Whether the defendants have perfected their title over the property by adverse possession and if so to what relief? 11. It went on to elaborately appreciate the evidence and finally concluded that plaintiff is the true owner of the plaint schedule property. Thus, it agreed with the finding of the trial Court in that regard. It examined the entire evidence led by the defendants with reference to their claim of adverse possession and held that they failed to demonstrate possession of this property by them for over 12 years and thus, held that the appellants/defendants before it did not perfect their title by adverse possession. However, it found fault with the trial Court in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It stated that the prayer in the plaint is clumsy and is not clear whether plaintiff is asking for recovery of possession or not. It also observed that it could not understand what is meant by constructive possession which was recorded in the judgment of the trial Court. It stated that the prayer in the plaint is clumsy and is not clear whether plaintiff is asking for recovery of possession or not. It also observed that it could not understand what is meant by constructive possession which was recorded in the judgment of the trial Court. It then considered Ex.B-series documents and found that granting permanent injunction based on the theory of constructive possession claimed by the plaintiff could not be maintained and therefore to that extent it set aside the judgment of the trial Court and stated that plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property from the defendants. 12. Irked by the said judgment of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff is forced to file the present appeal. 13. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised in this appeal, it has to be stated that aggrieved by the first appellate Court's judgment, the defendants in the suit preferred S.A. No.979 of 2001 before this Court. On 01.02.2002 Mr. Justice S.R. Nayak dismissed the said appeal on merits. It is undisputed that the said judgment attained finality. Thus, the title claimed by the plaintiff stood affirmed by this Court. In this present appeal that aspect of the matter, has not therefore fallen for consideration. 14. Transfer of title and delivery of possession is evidenced by Ex.A.3-gift deed dated 02.07.1949 of Sri Inti Ramaswamy is clear. Thereafter transfer of title and delivery of possession in favour of plaintiff is clear from Ex.A.1-gift deed dated 13.11.1985. The suit was laid before the trial Court in the year 1985 itself. Thus, having taken delivery of possession of the property under Ex.A.1 in the year 1985 the plaintiff had to sue for declaration of her title and also for declaration that she is in possession of the property. A reading of the plaint makes it absolutely clear that repeatedly plaintiff has pleaded that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is only in that context she sought a declaration that her possession is to be declared. It is not her case at any time that she lost her possession over the property. 15. A reading of the plaint makes it absolutely clear that repeatedly plaintiff has pleaded that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is only in that context she sought a declaration that her possession is to be declared. It is not her case at any time that she lost her possession over the property. 15. The trial Court, the first appellate Court and this Court in second appeal have concluded saying that defendants in the suit have no title over the property and they did not have such possession to be called as adverse possession. That finding also attained finality. Learned counsel for appellants contend that the law is that possession follows title and the learned trial Court rightly held the same but the learned first appellate Court erroneously reversed that and that error of the first appellate Court shall be rectified by this Court. Learned counsel argued that on the aspect of the possession the approach of the learned first appellate Court is perverse and it acted upon documents that do not contain contents enabling anyone to reach to such conclusions. 16. As against it, the learned counsel for respondents argued that by the pleadings and evidence on both sides, it was found that several properties were gutted in fire accident in that area and by Ex.B-series documents they have clearly demonstrated their possession over the property and they received the compensation from the Government for the fire accident victims and the judgment of the learned first appellate Court with reference to possession of the defendants is correct. There is no merit in this appeal. 17. On considering the rival submissions and on considering the material on record, this Court has to state that the impugned judgment, to the extent it is challenged here, cannot be sustained for the following reasons: The concurrent findings of the Courts below recorded the title of the deceased first appellant/plaintiff. The recitals in those documents are proved to be correct and therefore possession gained by the plaintiff/deceased first appellant has to be accepted. Possession claimed by the defendants is for a period of 40 years as per their pleadings. Both Courts negatived that assertion. Both Courts also held that even for 12 years defendants could not establish their possession. The recitals in those documents are proved to be correct and therefore possession gained by the plaintiff/deceased first appellant has to be accepted. Possession claimed by the defendants is for a period of 40 years as per their pleadings. Both Courts negatived that assertion. Both Courts also held that even for 12 years defendants could not establish their possession. Both Courts stated Exs.B.7 to B.10 complaints to police and postal acknowledgments pertain to the year 1990 which came into existence well after filing of the suit in the year 1985 and they did not place reliance on them. Exs.B.1 and B.2 are photographs with negatives. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for appellants, the photographer did not testify to prove those documents. In fact the evidence on record does not indicate as to when those photographs were taken. It is also not seen as to how when the properties gutted one could see photographs with a hut. There was no clear evidence on record to show that the house that is there in the photographs is the one that is there in the plaint schedule property. At any rate, a photograph by itself without the necessary details prove anybody's possession. 18. In their written statement, defendants admitted that the properties of that locality were gutted and by then they were in possession of the house that was there in the plaint schedule property. In this regard, they produced Exs.B.3 to B.5 which are certificates issued by Mandal Revenue Officer. It has to be stated that the author of the certificates had to testify and in this case the issuing authority did not testify on behalf of the defendants/respondents. At any rate, as rightly contended by learned counsel for appellants, these certificates which show the payment of compensation to defendants do not indicate that they pertain to plaint schedule property. Ex.B.6 is the voters list. It bears certain door numbers and mentions the details of the voters therein. The plaint schedule does not contain those door numbers. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for appellants that while the plaint schedule property is undisputedly situate in Upper Relli Veedhi the voters list pertain to Jalarpet. Ex.B.6 is the voters list. It bears certain door numbers and mentions the details of the voters therein. The plaint schedule does not contain those door numbers. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for appellants that while the plaint schedule property is undisputedly situate in Upper Relli Veedhi the voters list pertain to Jalarpet. When these facts are clear from the record, learned first appellate Court without actually recording a definitive finding of possession of defendants negatived the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove her possession. That approach of the learned first appellate Court is an obvious perversity as the documents relied upon by it do not allow anyone to conclude the fact in the way it concluded it. Defendants have never shown how they dispossessed plaintiff subsequent to Ex.A.1 dated 13.11.1985. The possession she obtained under Ex.A.1 shall be construed to continue as a matter of fact in terms of illustration (d) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is not the case of respondents/defendants that they have no other properties around the plaint schedule property forcing one to think that the compensation they received was the one that pertains to the house that earlier situate in plaint schedule property. It is in the light of these clear and apparent facts, this Court holds all the points in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. The modifying judgment of the first appellate Court to the extent that is impugned here shall stand set aside. 19. In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.03.2000 of learned III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S. No.98 of 1996 is set aside to the extent it reversed the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the judgment of the trial Court holds good. Accordingly, O.S. No.1436 of 1985 on the file of learned III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam stands decreed declaring that the appellants/plaintiff holds the title and possession over the plaint schedule property. A perpetual injunction is granted against the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants over the plaint schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.