JUDGMENT : This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2014 in A.S.No.10 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2012 in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. 2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. It is to be here that the appellants 1 and 2 herein died during the pendency of this appeal and their legal representatives are brought on record as appellants 3 to 6 and 7 to 9 respectively. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs. 4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.10 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.233 of 2006, is as follows: The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule house site, which is situated in Venkatakrishnapalem Gramakantam. The plaintiff occupied the same about 25 years ago and constructed a thatched hut i.e., Sapara mud and he is residing therein with his family members. He further contended that in recognition of his continuous possession and enjoyment, at his request the revenue authorities issued house site patta vide No.6021/1407, dated 20.06.1998. After that, the plaintiff remodel the hut by effecting repairs in the year 1998 and he is also obtained electricity service connection bearing No.3963. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without anybody’s interruption. After that, the plaintiff remodel the hut by effecting repairs in the year 1998 and he is also obtained electricity service connection bearing No.3963. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without anybody’s interruption. He further contended that the defendants are strangers as the plaintiff left vacant place for cattle and other purpose, on 29.10.2006 the defendants along with their supporters started removing water tub and debris and hay thereby the plaintiff has no other option except filing the suit. Hence, the suit. 7. The 1st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: Originally, the plaint schedule property and some other properties are belonged to Boorga Munirathnam Dasu and Booraga Chadandra Sekhar Dasu and they sold the plaint schedule property to Guruswamy Dasu S/o Kailasam Dasu (1st defendant) under a registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1975. Later, the 1st defendant again purchased some of the property from Kanakamma under a registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1976 from his lawful owner. Since then the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff has no right and title and possession over the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant further contended that he sold the plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant on 16.10.2006 under a registered sale deed and delivered possession of the said property for an extent of East-West: 6 ¼ yards and North-South: 19 yards. Since then the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at the time of filing of the suit and he is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.17 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 were marked. 10. (2) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.17 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 were marked. 10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.10 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, wherein, the following point came up for consideration. Whether the appellant is entitled for permanent injunction and whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside? 11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by decreeing the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.233 of 2006 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 09.10.2015, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the following substantial questions of law are framed: (1) Whether the Court below was in error in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court and in granting a decree for perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff even though possession much less lawful possession over the suit schedule property is not established? (2) Whether the Court below was in error in granting a perpetual injunction against the true owner? (3) Whether the Court below was in error in granting a perpetual injunction merely basing on an electricity bill pertaining to alleged service connection said to have been obtained in respect of the plaint schedule property though there is no cogent evidence in that regard? 13. Heard Sri K.S. Gopala Krishna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Smt. C. Jhansi Rani, learned counsel for the respondent. 14. 13. Heard Sri K.S. Gopala Krishna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Smt. C. Jhansi Rani, learned counsel for the respondent. 14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S. Gopala Krishna on behalf of the appellants would contend that the decree and judgment of the 1st appellate Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He would further contend that the 1st appellate Court ought to have seen that the question of granting permanent injunction does not arise on the basis of the electricity meter against true owner. He would further contend that the 1st appellate Court ought to have seen that the respondent/plaintiff has not examined any neighbor in support of his alleged possession. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would contend that on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned 1st appellate Judge rightly set aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned 1st appellate Judge in its judgment. 16. The plaintiff instituted a suit before the trial Court for seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule house site which is situated in Venkatakrishnapalem Gramakantam and he occupied the same at about 25 years ago and constructed a thatched hut and is residing therein and his recognition of the continuous possession and enjoyment, at his request, the revenue authorities issued house site patta vide No.6021/1407, dated 20.06.1998. He further pleaded that after that, the plaintiff remodel the hut by effecting repairs in the year 1998 and he is also obtained electricity service connection bearing No.3963. He further pleaded that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since 25 years prior to the institution of the suit and the defendants are strangers and they are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. 17. In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden heavily casts on the plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. 17. In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden heavily casts on the plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff to prove his case, he relied on his sole testimony as P.W.1. He reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence affidavit as P.W.1. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property since 20 years prior to the institution of the suit. To prove the alleged long possession, no relevant documents are filed by the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is electricity demand notice for August, 2006. The Door Number of house is not at all mentioned in Ex.A.2. Ex.A.3 is the certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary. Ex.A.3 is dated 21.03.2007, which is subsequent to filing of the suit. As per the recitals in Ex.A.3, the plaintiff is in possession of thatched hut bearing Door No.3-103, but the door number and thatched hut is not at all mentioned in Ex.A.3. In the plaint schedule also the existence of thatched hut and the door number of the house property was not at all mentioned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross examination that there is overwriting in the first column in year in Ex.A.1. It was suggested to P.W.1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants that the defendants paid house tax in respect of the plaint schedule house, the said suggestion is denied by the plaintiff. Another admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence in cross examination is during the pendency of the suit, he obtained Ex.A.3 possession certificate from the Panchayat. As stated supra, there is no whisper in the plaint schedule about the door number and also thatched hut as mentioned in the plaint schedule. In the plaint schedule the survey number and extent of Ac.0-03 cents and vacant site apparent to it is only mentioned, the same is not there in Ex.A.3. Further Ex.A.3 is disputing by the defendants. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove Ex.A.3 by summoning the issuing authority i.e., Panchayat Secretary to prove the recitals of Ex.A.3. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the plaintiff to summon the Panchayat Secretary. The Door No.3-103 is there in Ex.A.3 certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary. Further Ex.A.3 is disputing by the defendants. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove Ex.A.3 by summoning the issuing authority i.e., Panchayat Secretary to prove the recitals of Ex.A.3. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the plaintiff to summon the Panchayat Secretary. The Door No.3-103 is there in Ex.A.3 certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary. As noticed supra, there is no whisper in the plaint schedule about the door number and also thatched hut in the plaint schedule. The house property is not at all mentioned in the schedule by the plaintiff. The vacant site of Ac.0-03 cents only is mentioned in the plaint schedule. 18. Ex.A.1 is alleged to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of vacant site for an extent of Ac.0-03 cents. There was a specific admission of the plaintiff in his evidence in cross examination itself that there is overwriting on the first column in year in Ex.A.1. D.W.2, the Mandal Revenue Officer, deposed in his evidence that as per their office records, no house site patta was issued in favour of the plaintiff. D.W.2 admitted in his evidence that as per their records, DKT patta under Ex.A.1 was not at all issued in favour of the plaintiff. In cross examination D.W.2 asserts that after verifying the house site register, he is saying that Ex.A.1 is not genuine and it is fabricated document. Therefore, the above admissions of D.W.2 clearly go to show that Ex.A.1 is a fabricated patta. The plaintiff herein claims possession under fabricated document viz., Ex.A.1. Therefore, he cannot entitle injunction. 19. The specific case of the defendants is that the plaint schedule property and some other properties are belonged to Boorga Munirathnam Dasu and Booraga Chadandra Sekhar Dasu and they sold the plaint schedule property to 1st defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1975 under Ex.B.6. It is also the specific case of the defendants that the 1st defendant was inducted into possession of the said property on the date of registered sale deed and later the 1st defendant sold the schedule property to the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1976 under Ex.B.2 and delivered possession of the said property for an extent of East-West: 6 ¼ yards and North-South: 19 yards. The defendants specifically pleaded that the property is not at all belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not having any manner of right in the plaint schedule property. The defendants also relied on a documentary evidence Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 registered sale deeds, Ex.B.3 house tax receipts (6 in number) and also Ex.B.6 another registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1975. The defendants also claiming title over the plaint schedule property. 20. 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. 21. Law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh, (2019) 17 SCC 692 wherein it was held that: “It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court that in each and every case where the defendant dispute the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases 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.” In the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs., and others, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594 wherein the Apex Court held as follows: 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. (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.” Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff’s title is under a cloud. The defendants claiming title by virtue of a registered sale deed and plaintiff is seeking the relief of permanent injunction by producing a fabricated document under Ex.A.1 which is supported by Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., D.W.2. In such a case, the suit for permanent injunction cannot be decided with reference to finding on possession. As stated supra, 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. 22. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the contention of the plaintiff is that he is in long possession of the plaint schedule property since 25 years prior to filing of the suit. Undoubtedly, no document is filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since 25 years prior to filing of the suit. The specific case of the defendants is that they purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, the same is supported by way of documentary evidence. The Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., D.W.2 also admitted in his evidence that Ex.A.1 patta was not a genuine patta and it is a fabricated patta and it is not issued by the revenue authorities. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear that the plaintiff is not approached the Court with clean hands and he approached the Court with a fabricated patta Ex.A.1 for claiming the relief of permanent injunction, in such a case, undoubtedly, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear that the plaintiff is not approached the Court with clean hands and he approached the Court with a fabricated patta Ex.A.1 for claiming the relief of permanent injunction, in such a case, undoubtedly, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of permanent injunction. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. 23. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit, but unfortunately, the learned 1st appellate Judge came to a wrong conclusion and allowed the first appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate Judge is liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, the second appeal is allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 05.03.2014 in A.S.No.10 of 2012, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur and confirming the decree and judgment, dated 05.03.2012 in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.