JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. Perused the record. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mancherial, in O.S.No.10 of 2017 (Old O.S.No.23 of 2015 of District Court, Adilabad), dated 27.02.2019, wherein, respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are granted the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.3 to 5/defendant Nos.4 to 6 from interfering with the suit schedule properties while dismissing the relief of declaration of title. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.10 of 2017. Facts of the case: 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of themselves and defendant Nos.7 to 10 as owners and possessors of suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and their family members from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10 over the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are land in Sy.No.545 admeasuring Ac.5-37 Gts. and Sy.No.546 admeasuring Ac.5-02 Gts., situated at Chennur Village and Mandal; land in Sy.No.90 admeasuring Ac.6.05 Gts., Sy.No.115 admeasuring Ac.9- 16 Gts., Sy.No.91 admeasuring Ac.2-25 Gts. and Sy.No.462/1 admeasuring Ac.0-22 Gts., situated at Kattersala Shivar, Chennur Mandal. 5. The case of the plaintiffs is that Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah and one Late Narayana, husband of defendant No.7 and father of defendant Nos.8 to 10 were pattedars of lands in Sy.Nos.545 and 546. Said lands were in the name of Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah as pattedar and possessor as per pahanies of the year 1955, 1957 and 1958. After the death of Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah, the mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Varala Venkatamma was in possession as owner and subsequently, the plaintiffs came into possession of the lands as pattedars and possessors and their names are reflected in the pahanies. 6. The plaintiffs’ mother Varala Venkatamma was the pattedar and possessor of lands in Sy.Nos.90, 115 and 91 and the pahanies of the years 1983, 1985 and 1987-88 reflected her name as pattedar and possessor during her life time. 6. The plaintiffs’ mother Varala Venkatamma was the pattedar and possessor of lands in Sy.Nos.90, 115 and 91 and the pahanies of the years 1983, 1985 and 1987-88 reflected her name as pattedar and possessor during her life time. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10 were in possession and the same is evident from the pahanies. The land in Sy.No.462/1 is the patta land of the plaintiffs’ father and mother, they were in possession during their life time and after their death, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.7 to 10 are in possession. The plaintiffs’ father died 42 years ago and the mother died 30 years ago. When the plaintiffs’ father died, the plaintiffs were aged two or three years. The plaintiffs were aged about 14 or 15 years when their mother died. 7. The defendant No.1 is the paternal uncle’s wife. After the death of Chinna Ramulu i.e. husband of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 is living in the house of plaintiffs as there was nobody to look after their welfare and acted as their guardian. When the plaintiffs became majors, they along with defendant Nos.7 to 10 were cultivating the suit lands as owners and possessors as Class-I legal heirs of Varala Venkataih and Varala Venkatamma. The defendant No.1 who is aged more than 80 years old was dependant on the plaintiffs as she had no living relatives after the death of her husband and being issueless. The defendant No.1 adopted the plaintiff No.1 and therefore, lived along with the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 colluded with defendant Nos.4 to 6. Taking advantage of their innocence got the suit lands mutated in the name of defendant No.1 though she was never in possession. Said mutation is void. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.7 to 10 are cultivating the suit lands by engaging the servants by name Rajababu and Ennamreddy Bhaskar and some of the suit lands given on lease to Baddur Rajam and Ennamreddy Srinu. 8. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are not related to the plaintiffs or defendant No.1 have taken defendant No.1 to their house and forced her to execute registered sale deed bearing No.10967 of 2013 and 10968 of 2013, both dated 16.08.2013 with respect to land in Sy.Nos.115, 90 and 91 and said sale deeds are void. 8. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are not related to the plaintiffs or defendant No.1 have taken defendant No.1 to their house and forced her to execute registered sale deed bearing No.10967 of 2013 and 10968 of 2013, both dated 16.08.2013 with respect to land in Sy.Nos.115, 90 and 91 and said sale deeds are void. The said lands are in possession of the plaintiffs and attempt to mutate the lands in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 was declined by the Tahsildar, Chennur as defendant No.1 had no right to execute the sale deeds. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs are to be declared as owners of the suit schedule properties and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are to be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. On 15.05.2015, when the plaintiffs through their agents were ploughing the land, defendant Nos.1 to 6 along with their family members and relatives made attempts to interfere with the possession of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Said attempts were resisted, however, they departed threatening with forcible dispossession. In this backdrop, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is filed. 9. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 opposed the suit claim by filing written statement. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the case of the plaintiffs about plaintiffs’ father and mother being owners of land in Sy.No.545, 546, 90, 91, 115 and 462/1 in Chennur village. Further, the plaintiffs were never in possession of said lands after the death of their parents. A false story is created to knock away the lands belonging to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs do not have any right, title or claim over the suit schedule properties and therefore, cannot seek declaration of title. According to the defendants, the suit schedule lands belong to defendant No.1 having inherited from her husband. The defendant No.1 has sold Ac.9-16 Gts. in Sy.No.115 to defendant No.2 and also Ac.6-05 Gts. in Sy.No.90 and Ac.2-25 Gts. in Sy.No.91 in favour of defendant No.3 and ever since, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the land. 10. Coming to the aspect of title, defendant Nos.1 to 3 pleaded that the land in Sy.No.545 belongs to V. Mutha Gopal, who is father-in-law of defendant No.1 and said Mutha Gopal had three sons by name Chinna Ramaiah, Mutha Narsaiah and Mutha Narayana. 10. Coming to the aspect of title, defendant Nos.1 to 3 pleaded that the land in Sy.No.545 belongs to V. Mutha Gopal, who is father-in-law of defendant No.1 and said Mutha Gopal had three sons by name Chinna Ramaiah, Mutha Narsaiah and Mutha Narayana. The son by name Chinna Ramaiah married to defendant No.1. Said Chinna Ramaiah died issueless. Another son by name Mutha Narsaiah was married to one Kanana Laxmi. Said Kanaka Laxmi left to her parents house after the death of Narsaiah who was issueless. Third son Mutha Narayana also died issueless. The only survivor is defendant No.1. After the death of Mutha Narsaiah and Mutha Narayana, Chinna Ramaiah became the owner of the entire properties belonging to Mutha Gopal. After the death of Chinna Ramaiah, defendant No.1 became the owner and possessor of entire suit schedule lands. The whereabouts of Kanaka Laxmi are not known for the last 30 years. According to the defendants, said Kanaka Laxmi relinquished her rights over the suit schedule properties by taking lump sum amount from defendant No.1. 11. The defendants denied the plaintiffs version about being the owners of the suit schedule properties through their parents Varala Venkataiah @ Venkati and Varala Venkatamma. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are daughters of Varala Mutha Venkataiah who is nephew of Varala Mutha Gopal i.e. son of his brother Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. Defendants pleaded that Varala Mutha Venkataiah has brother by name Varala Mutha Ramaiah. Said Varala Mutha Ramaiah has two sons Mutha Thirupathi and Mutha Gopal. Both of them died long back. He has two daughters Radha and Laxmi. Radha/defendant No.3 was married to defendant No.2 and another daughter Laxmi was married to Behani Manmohan and she is living in Karnataka State with her family. Varala Buchi Ramulu’s another son Varala Mutha Venkataiah has three issues i.e, one son Narayana and two daughters Bharathi/plaintiff No.1 and Sarathi/plaintiff No.2. The son Narayana died long back and he had two sons Ganesh, Venkatesh and a daughter Pushpalatha. In view of this family tree, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the family of Varala Mutha Gopal and they are not his legal heirs and therefore, do not have any interest in the suit schedule properties. 12. In view of this family tree, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the family of Varala Mutha Gopal and they are not his legal heirs and therefore, do not have any interest in the suit schedule properties. 12. The defendant No.1 who is the sole legal heir of Varala Mutha Gopal, alone has right to succeed the interest and therefore, said lands were mutated in her name. The defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment ever since mutation. The plaintiffs’ father had no landed property at the time of his death. Likewise, the mother of the plaintiffs had no self-acquired property during her life time. The defendant No.1 acting as guardian of plaintiffs and living in their house after the death of parents of plaintiffs is denied. The plaintiffs looking after the welfare of defendant No.1 and adopting plaintiff No.1 is denied. Collusion between defendant Nos.4 to 6 for executing the registered sale deeds is denied. There is no truth in the pleading that the plaintiffs’ mother died when they were 14 to 15 years according to defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs’ mother died after the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with one Amarshetty Kishtaiah and the plaintiff No.2 with one Koppula Satyam. The plaintiff No.1 has deserted her first husband after giving birth to two daughters and married another person by name Metpelli Yellaiah of Erraipet village and gave birth to a son. The plaintiff No.1 is residing with her son by leaving second husband. The houses of the plaintiffs and the house of defendant No.1 are situated beside one another in the same locality. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiffs have hatched a plan to grab the land belonging to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs started harassing defendant No.1 to transfer her land to their names and when she did not accede to the same, defendant No.1 got issued legal notice to the plaintiffs on 14.03.2013. Even so, the harassment continued. Therefore, defendant No.1 sold away the property on 16.08.2013 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. 13. The defendants denied the plaintiffs possession over the suit lands and personally cultivating the said lands with the assistance of Raja Babu, Ennam Reddy Bhasker, Baddur Rajam and Ennam Reddy Srinu. Even so, the harassment continued. Therefore, defendant No.1 sold away the property on 16.08.2013 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. 13. The defendants denied the plaintiffs possession over the suit lands and personally cultivating the said lands with the assistance of Raja Babu, Ennam Reddy Bhasker, Baddur Rajam and Ennam Reddy Srinu. Since the plaintiff No.1 left her second husband and did not have source of income, plaintiff No.2 was also in search of livelihood, they approached defendant No.1 and requested her to give the lands on lease. The defendant No.1 considered their plea on sympathetic grounds and to provide livelihood leased her lands to them. However, taking advantage of the old age, innocence and illiteracy of defendant No.1, the platiniffs got their names entered in the revenue records as cultivators by way of manipulation and misrepresentation. The husband of defendant No.1 cultivated the suit lands till his death and thereafter, defendant No.1 cultivated the same. The plaintiffs managed wrong entry in pahani of the year 1983-84, wherein, the name of mother of plaintiffs is mentioned by manipulation. The entire suit lands belong to defendant No.1 exclusively and suit lands are also in her possession. The defendant No.1 has sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 having every right to sell the same as pattedar and possessor. The sale deeds executed are not sham documents and mutation is refused by the Tahsildar, Chennur due to filing of the present suit. The defendant No.1 has sold the property out of free will without any force or coercion and the plaintiffs are in no way concerned with the sale transaction and no right to claim any relief. 14. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Trial Court, framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether father and mother of plaintiffs were original owners of suit schedule properties? 2) Whether D1 illegally got suit schedule lands mutated in her name in collusion with D4 to D6? 3) Whether D4 to D6 forcibly got executed sale deeds in favour of D2 and D3? 4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners of suit schedule properties? 5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? 6) To what relief? 15. During trial, the plaintiffs got examined PWs 1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A29. Defendants got examined DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B79. 4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners of suit schedule properties? 5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? 6) To what relief? 15. During trial, the plaintiffs got examined PWs 1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A29. Defendants got examined DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B79. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part, leading to filing of the present appeal. Grounds of appeal: 16. In grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the Trial Court dismissed the main relief of declaration and therefore, ought to have dismissed the consequential relief as well, instead, granted consequential relief of perpetual injunction. It is pleaded that the father-in-law of defendant No.1 was the owner and possessor of suit schedule properties. Being lone survivor, the defendant No.1 succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Whereas the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10 are children and younger brother of Mutha Gopal and not his successors and therefore, there is no possibility of them entering into possession of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiffs failed to prove the death of their parents and adoption of plaintiff No.1 by defendant No.1 and both of them residing together. With respect to appearance of name of one Venkatamma in the revenue records, the defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants herein pleaded that the name of plaintiffs as well as the name of mother-in-law of defendant No.1 is Venkatamma. The name figuring in the records is the name of mother-in-law of defendant No.1 but not mother of the plaintiffs. It is pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 does not know how her mother succeeded the lands of Mutha Gopal and said fact is not considered by the Trial Court. When there is an admission about mutation of suit lands in the name of plaintiff No.1, the suit ought to have been dismissed. 17. The pahanies for the years 2004-05 contain the names of defendant No.1 as owner and possessor. The reference to Exs.A1, A3, A4 and A7 which are observed by the Trial Court to contain the name of the mother of plaintiffs is erroneous because said name refers to Venkatamma W/o Mutha Gopal. There is improper appreciation of the pahanies alleging that the plaintiffs are shown to be cultivators of land. The reference to Exs.A1, A3, A4 and A7 which are observed by the Trial Court to contain the name of the mother of plaintiffs is erroneous because said name refers to Venkatamma W/o Mutha Gopal. There is improper appreciation of the pahanies alleging that the plaintiffs are shown to be cultivators of land. There is heavy reliance placed on Exs.A1 to A4 and A7 for granting perpetual injunction on the basis of possession ignoring the fact that the name of Venkatamma, mother- in-law of defendant No.1 and the names of plaintiffs are deliberately entered in the possession column whereas originally, it refers to defendant No.1. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 ought to have been ignored as no documentary evidence was placed in support of their oral evidence. The Trial court has held that the non-examination of defendant No.1 is fatal but the same is erroneous as the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs but not on the defendants. 18. The observation about the plaintiffs living with defendant No.1 on the basis of entries in the pahanies marked under Exs.A9 to A26 is disputed as improper appreciation of evidence. The finding of the Trial Court that the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is supported by contents of Exs.A9 to A26 is erroneous. Exs.B1 to B79 are public documents and they are not disputed. The Trial Court was pre- determined and granted perpetual injunction by dismissing the main relief of declaration of title. As such, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 19. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Whether there is correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is maintainable? (ii) To what relief? Contentions of defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants: 20. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants herein submitted that there is a serious error committed by the Trial Court in granting perpetual injunction as the same is based on improper and incorrect appreciation of contents of exhibits marked in ‘A’ series. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are in no way connected or related to the original owner Mutha Gopal from whom defendant No.1 inherited the suit schedule properties. Whereas, the plaintiffs are grand daughters of Buchi Ramulu who is brother of Mutha Gopal. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are in no way connected or related to the original owner Mutha Gopal from whom defendant No.1 inherited the suit schedule properties. Whereas, the plaintiffs are grand daughters of Buchi Ramulu who is brother of Mutha Gopal. The plaintiffs are not even remotely concerned with the suit schedule properties and therefore, cannot claim relief of declaration of title as owners of the suit schedule properties. 21. There is an erroneous observation by the learned Trial Court with respect to the name of Venkatamma. The name of plaintiffs’ mother is Venkatamma and also the name of mother-in- law of defendant No.1 is also Venkatamma. The appearance of name of Venkatamma in the records is taken to be that of the plaintiffs’ mother and thereby, the case of plaintiffs is examined in positive perspective. The suit schedule lands originally belonged to Mutha Gopal and defendant No.1 is his daughter-in-law and sole survivor amongst the three sons and daughters-in-law of Mutha Gopal. The remaining survivor Kanaka Laxmi’s whereabouts are not known for the past 30 years. Even otherwise, the said Kanaka Laxmi relinquished her rights in favour of defendant No.1 by taking lump sum amount and therefore, defendant No.1 is the sole and exclusive owner of suit schedule lands. As owner and possessor, defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, it is the defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are having right, title and interest having acquired the same from defendant No.1. To the contrary, the learned Trial Court has erroneously granted perpetual injunction on the basis of oral evidence of PWs 2 to 4 whose evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. 22. Lastly, the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3 argued that the suit is not maintainable when the suit for declaration of title is prayed for but there is no prayer sought for cancellation of sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. 23. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (D) through LRs. and others , AIR 2019 (11) SCC 309 , wherein, it is held as follows: “17. The plaintiff has to prove his case to the satisfaction of the Court. 23. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (D) through LRs. and others , AIR 2019 (11) SCC 309 , wherein, it is held as follows: “17. The plaintiff has to prove his case to the satisfaction of the Court. He cannot succeed on the weakness of the case of the defendant. Even otherwise, there is no confusion at all regarding the identity of the property in question and on the basis of material on record, the First Appellate Court has correctly ruled that the appellant/Defendant No.1 has proved his title and possession over the suit property since the date of his purchase of the property. Prior to the purchase, his predecessor in interest was in possession of the same.” 24. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3 further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar , 2023 Live Law (SC) 999 , wherein, it is held as follows: “23. This Court, in Union of India and Ors. vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 269 , held as under: “15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff.” 24. This decision was affirmed, and further elaborated upon, in Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) thr. LRs. and Ors. vs. Shivnath and Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 82 , wherein this Court has succinctly summarized the law on burden of proof in suits for declaration of title as follows: “44. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the Plaintiffs-Respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendants-Appellants. The burden is on the Plaintiffs- Respondents to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. The burden is on the Plaintiffs- Respondents to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.” 26. This Court, in Somnath Burman vs. S.P. Raju and Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 129 held that possession can be regarded as a better title against all, except the true and lawful owner. Therefore, the multitude of revenue documents put to use to argue that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit property would not adequately meet the demands of proof made by law. The only credible document of title led as evidence in the present case was in favour of the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest; hence, it must follow that it is only the defendant who can be declared the lawful owner of the ‘B’ schedule property. 27. In the light of the discussions made above, we hold that the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit by placing on a higher probative pedestal the revenue entries. In our considered opinion, the first appellate court rightly overturned the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. The Commissioner’s order was correctly interpreted to determine as to in whom occupancy rights vested in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property.” 25. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 further relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. and others , 2014 (2) SCC 269 wherein, it is held as follows: “12. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” Contentions of plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2: 26. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein argued that the Trial court has rightly granted perpetual injunction on the basis of the possession which was established through revenue records. With respect to the contention of the defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants about the sustainability of grant of permanent injunction when the main relief of declaration of title is denied, reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad and another , (2002) 1 SCC 90 , wherein, it is held as follows: “14. Where the relief prayed for in the suit is a larger relief and if no case is made out for granting the same but the facts, as established, justify granting of a smaller relief Order VII Rule 7 permits granting of such a relief to the parties. However, under the said provisions, a relief larger than the one claimed by the plaintiff in the suit cannot be granted.” 27. Further, the learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in case between Kusam Satyanarayana Reddy and others v. Kusam Sambrajyamma (Died) by LRs. and others , 2004 (2) ALD 635 (DB) wherein, it is held as follows: “18. In view of this judgment and in view of the mandate of Order 7, Rule 7 of the Code which clothes the Courts with inherent power to grant either general relief or other relief which appears to be just, legitimate and proper in any case even though such reliefs have not been specifically asked for. We find no difficulty in this case in upholding the Trial Court’s judgment. It may also be, however, noted that under Order 7, Rule 7 of the Code although the Court can grant a relief which has not been asked for, but it cannot grant a relief which is larger than the relief claimed by the plaintiff, but where the relief claimed by the plaintiff is larger and the Court grants a relief which is smaller than the one claimed, it would be legal.” 28. With respect to the plaintiffs not seeking declaration of registered sale deeds as null and void, reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar and others , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1097 , wherein, it is held as follows: “18. …. It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings.” Point No. 1: 29. A perusal of the record shows that the case of the plaintiffs is that their father Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah is the original owner and pattedar of suit schedule properties, after his death, said lands have been succeeded by their mother Varala Venkatamma and after their mother’s death, the said lands are succeeded by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10. The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to show that the suit schedule properties were in the name of their father Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah and that after his death, the lands were mutated in the name of their mother Varala Venkatamma and that they are in possession of the said lands ever since the death of their mother Varala Venkatamma. Per contra, the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is that originally, the lands belonged to Varala Mutha Gopal, that after his death, his wife Varala Venkatamma has succeeded to the lands. Said Varala Mutha Gopal had three sons Varala Mutha Chinna Ramaiah, Varala Mutha Narsaiah and Varala Mutha Narayana. All the three sons died issueless. Varala Mutha Chinna Ramaiah is survived by defendant No.1, Varala Mutha Narsaiah is survived by his wife Kanaka Laxmi who has left the village after the death of Varala Mutha Narsaiah and her whereabouts are not known for about 30 years. 30. It is the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the plaintiffs are in no way concerned with the suit schedule lands as they are not the successors of Varala Mutha Gopal. According to defendant Nos.2 and 3, Varala Mutha Gopal had a brother by name Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. 30. It is the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the plaintiffs are in no way concerned with the suit schedule lands as they are not the successors of Varala Mutha Gopal. According to defendant Nos.2 and 3, Varala Mutha Gopal had a brother by name Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. The said Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu had two sons Varala Mutha Ramaiah and Varala Mutha Venkataiah. Varala Mutha Ramaiah had two sons Mutha Thirupathi and Mutha Gopal and two daughters Radha and Laxmi. Another son Varala Mutha Venkataiah had two daughters Bharathi/plaintiff No.1 and Saradhi/plaintiff No.2 and one son Narayana/husband of defendant No.7 and father of defendant Nos.8 to 10. 31. The point to be noted is that the plaintiffs are claiming suit schedule properties through their father Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah S/o Mutha Buchi Ramulu but not Mutha Gopal. The plaint is clear about the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to their father Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah and that after his death, said lands were succeeded by their mother Varala Venkatamma followed by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 10. Said pleadings are extracted and produced below: “4. That suit land admeasuring Ac.5-37 Gts. in Sy.No.545 and Ac.5-02 Gts., in Sy.No.546 situated at Chennur Village and Mandal were in the name of the father of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 by name Varala Venkati @ Venkataiah as pattedar and possessor from the perusal of the pahanies for the year 1955, 57, 58 and after his death the mother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 namely Varala Venkatamma was in possession as owner and later on the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are in possession of the above suit lands as owners and possessors even till today from the perusal of the pahanies till this year. 5. That the mother of the plaintiffs namely Varala Venkatamma was the pattedar and possessor of the suit lands bearing Sy.No.90 measuring Ac.6-05 Gts. and Sy.No.115 measuring Ac.9-16 Gts. 5. That the mother of the plaintiffs namely Varala Venkatamma was the pattedar and possessor of the suit lands bearing Sy.No.90 measuring Ac.6-05 Gts. and Sy.No.115 measuring Ac.9-16 Gts. and Sy.No.91 measuring Ac.2-25 Gts., situated at Kattersala Shivar and from the perusal of the pahnies for the years 1983, 1985 and 1987-88 which clearly reflects that the mother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 is the pattedar and possessor during her life time and afterwards, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.7 to 10 are in possession which is evident from the perusal of the pahanies after the death of the mother of the plaintiffs and the above three suit lands are situated at Kattersala village side by side. 6. That another suit land bearing Sy.No.462/1 measuring Ac.0-22 Gts., situated at Kattersala Shivar, Mandal Chennur is the patta land of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 father and mother and they were in possession during their life time and after their death, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.7 to 10 are in possession even till today which is evident from the perusal of the pahani patrika.” 32. The above pleadings have no reference to Varala Mutha Gopal or his brother Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. When it came to deposing evidence, the plaintiff No.1 as PW1 completely endorsed the family tree as presented by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. she is not a descendant of Varala Mutha Gopal but is a descendant of Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. The relevant portion of deposition of PW1 is extracted and produced below: “ I have no right over the properties left behind by V. Mutha Gopal. My father is brother of said V. Mutha Gopal. Buchi Ramaiah is father of my father and said V. Mutha Gopal. The witness again says that Buchi Ramulu and Gopal are brothers and that her father is son of Buchi Ramulu. My father has no brothers. Now D1 is in the custody of D2. D3 is wife of D2. It is not true to suggest that during 2005-06 we got our names included in the columns meant for possessors in respect of lands in S.Nos.90, 91 by tampering the record (relating to Ex.A2). D1 and China Ramaiah adopted me. It is not true to suggest that I was not adopted by D1 and China Ramaiah. It is not true to suggest that during 2005-06 we got our names included in the columns meant for possessors in respect of lands in S.Nos.90, 91 by tampering the record (relating to Ex.A2). D1 and China Ramaiah adopted me. It is not true to suggest that I was not adopted by D1 and China Ramaiah. In some pahanies our names are recorded with surname as Mutha and father’s name as Venkataiah. It is not true to suggest that only from 2005-06 our names are being recorded in pahanies as possessors by influencing revenue officials, that my parents have nothing to do with suit schedule and that they belonged to V. Mutha Gopal and that we have no right over the suit schedule and that I am deposing falsely. My mother succeeded to the suit schedule from V. Mutha Gopal. I do not know how she got it. As the suit schedule belonged to my mother, we are claiming it. 33. The above deposition of plaintiff No.1 as PW1 confirms that there are two brothers by name Varala Mutha Gopal and Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. Plaintiifs are the grand daughters of Varala Mutha Buchi Ramulu. Further, the plaintiffs have no claim over the properties belonging to Varala Mutha Gopal. However, the plaintiffs have made volte-face by claiming that her mother succeeded to the suit schedule properties from Varala Mutha Gopal. The oral evidence of PW1 in her cross examination totally nullifies her claim for declaration of title to the suit schedule properties from her parents. Once PW1 in her cross examination deposed that the suit schedule properties are inherited by her mother from Varala Mutha Gopal, the plaintiffs case would have no basis as said evidence would contradict to the pleadings of the plaint about the plaintiffs’ mother becoming owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands after the death of her husband Varala Mutha Venkataiah. A cursory reading of the pleadings of the plaint in comparison to the oral evidence of PW1, in her cross examination, PW1 completely negated the plaintiffs claim. 34. A cursory reading of the pleadings of the plaint in comparison to the oral evidence of PW1, in her cross examination, PW1 completely negated the plaintiffs claim. 34. Coming to the documentary evidence, Exs.A1, A3 and A4 consisting of pahanies for the years 1983-84 and 1985-86 with respect to Sy.Nos.90, 91 and 115, the name of Varala Venkatamma without father’s name or husband’s name is reflected as pattedar with respect to land in Sy.No.90 and 115, while the name of Varala Mutha Narsimhulu (son of Varala Mutha Gopal) is reflected with respect to land in Sy.No.91. The question is whether the said Varala Venkatamma is mother of the plaintiffs or wife of Mutha Gopal. In Ex.A2 pahani for the year 2005-06, defendant No.1 i.e. wife of Chinna Ramaiah and daughter-in-law of Mutha Gopal is shown as pattedar/owner of land in Sy.Nos.90 and 91 and plaintiffs are shown as possessors/cultivators. 35. From the pahanies produced by both the parties, the name of Mutha Narayana is shown as owner up to the year 1989-90 and thereafter, the name of defendant No.1 is shown as owner with respect to land in Sy.Nos.462, 545 and 546. Ex.A7 Faisal patti for the year 1982-83 shows the name of Varala Venkatamma without father’s name or husband’s name and Varala Mutha Gopal as pattedars of land with respect to Sy.Nos.90 and 115. These documents support the version of defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the suit schedule lands in Sy.Nos.90 and 115 belonged to Varala Mutha Gopal and it was subsequently mutated in the name of his wife Varala Venkatamma. Probabilities also show that after the death of Varala Venkatamma, the said properties were mutated in the name of two survivors i.e. Varala Mutha Laxmi and Varala Mutha Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah and after death of Mutha Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah, when his wife left the village, it appears that the entire land was mutated in the name of defendant No.1. In this entire sequence, there can be no right for Mutha Buchi Ramulu to succeed to the property of his brother Mutha Gopal. Consequently, the plaintiffs herein also being the grand daughters of Mutha Buchi Ramulu cannot have any right or interest in the suit schedule properties with respect to land in Sy.Nos.90 and 115. 36. Likewise, the plaintiffs cannot lay claim to the land in Sy.No.91 which also stands in the name of the defendant No.1. Consequently, the plaintiffs herein also being the grand daughters of Mutha Buchi Ramulu cannot have any right or interest in the suit schedule properties with respect to land in Sy.Nos.90 and 115. 36. Likewise, the plaintiffs cannot lay claim to the land in Sy.No.91 which also stands in the name of the defendant No.1. There is failure on the part of the plaintiffs to produce documentary evidence or credible oral evidence to demonstrate that the suit schedule lands originally stand in the name of their father Venktataiah. 37. The plaintiffs have produced Exs.A1, A3 and A4, wherein, the name of Varala Venkatamma is shown. However, there is failure to prove that said Varala Venkatamma is their mother and not wife of Varala Mutha Gopal. The parties who approach the Court have burden to prove their case. Therefore, the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove that the person Venkatamma whose name is reflected in Exs.A1, A3 and A4 as owner is their mother and not wife of Varala Mutha Gopal who is the brother of their grandfather. The plaintiffs had knowledge about the claim made by the defendants about the suit schedule properties belonging to Mutha Gopal and said land being succeeded by his wife Venkatamma followed by defendant No.1. When the plaintiffs have knowledge about the defense taken by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the written statement, it becomes imperative for the plaintiffs to clarify as to who is the person reflected in Exs.A1, A3 and A4. In the absence of supporting evidence, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the person Venkatamma reflected in Exs.A1, A3 and A4 is the mother of the plaintiffs. Further, as already discussed, the contents of the documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves rise to the probability of the suit lands being owned by Varala Mutha Gopal followed by his wife Varala Venkatamma and then by her survivors i.e. daughter-in-law/defendant No.1 and son Varala Mutha Narsaiah. Seen from any angle, the plaintiffs failed to prove their case for declaration of title as owners of the suit schedule properties. 38. Coming to the aspect of grant of perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs herein are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule properties since the death of their mother and not from defendant No.1 who allegedly adopted plaintiff No.1. 38. Coming to the aspect of grant of perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs herein are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule properties since the death of their mother and not from defendant No.1 who allegedly adopted plaintiff No.1. When the plaintiffs are unable to prove their title, consequently, the consequential relief of perpetual injunction also cannot be granted. In the instant case, the plaintiffs are claiming to be owners and possessors and therefore have sought injunction. The plaint shows that while valuing the suit, the plaintiffs have sought declaration of title and consequential injunction and not independent reliefs. Therefore, once the relief of declaration of title is denied, the relief of perpetual injunction also fails. The reference to the names of plaintiffs as cultivators in the pahanies for the years from 2005-06 i.e. Ex.A2, A9 to A26 cannot give them any independent right to be in possession of the suit schedule properties when there is lack of title. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court rightly denied the relief of declaration. Further, permanent injunction cannot be granted in favour of an occupant against the true owner. In the instant case, perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against as cultivators cannot be granted against defendant No.1 who is reflected as owner of the suit schedule properties and defendant Nos.2 and 3 who purchased from defendant No.1. Point No. 2: 39. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mancherial, in O.S.No.10 of 2017 (Old O.S.No.23 of 2015 of District Court, Adilabad), dated 27.02.2019. The suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.