1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2018, in A.S.No.01 of 2015, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 21.08.2014, in O.S.No.125 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

2. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.125 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, with a prayer for declaration of right and title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

3. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, allowed the appeal without costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellants herein are the defendants, the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.125 of 2010.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.125 of 2010.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.125 of 2010, is as follows:

                  The plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac.0.73 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.88 cents in S. No. 106/6, and the father of the plaintiff acquired the property under a gift deed dated 24.04.1967. The plaintiff pleaded that his father died intestate on 12.08.1989, and all the properties devolved upon his legal heirs. On 31.10.1989, the grandmother of the plaintiff and the sister of the plaintiff executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff, relinquishing their joint right in all the properties that devolved on them upon the death of Vytla Veerraghava Rao, i.e., the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the properties covered under the gift deed dated 24.04.1967 and that he is in possession of the same. He also obtained pattadar passbooks and paid land revenue to the Revenue Department.

                  The plaintiff further pleaded that the land belonging to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, covered under Sy.Nos.106/5 and 105/4, and that, as the plaintiff is a landlord in their village, defendant No. 1 and his son, who is defendant No. 3 herein, are making hectic efforts to encroach upon the plaintiff‟s land situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. The northern side of the land is upland, admeasuring approximately Ac.0.10 cents, and the remaining southern side of the plaint schedule property is cultivable land.

                  The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 tried to encroach upon the dimma land of the plaintiff, and the men of the plaintiff obstructed them from committing such illegal acts. He further pleaded that the defendants are making claims over the plaint schedule property and are attempting to encroach upon the cultivable land of the plaintiff by proclaiming in the village that they intend to purchase the same. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendants are creating such litigation, i.e., making false claims over the dimma land, so that the plaintiff would sell the land to the defendants at the cheapest rate. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

7. The case of the defendant No.3 as per the written statement filed by the defendant No.3, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is as follows:

                  The defendants got their land measured in R.S.No.106/5 and surveyed the same by the Mandal Surveyor, who fixed the boundaries and planted stones. Defendant No.3 pleaded that the plaintiff high-handedly removed the stones fixed by the Mandal Surveyor, and that when the defendants made a complaint to the concerned authorities, the plaintiff, in order to stall the action taken by the authorities and with a view to encroach upon the land of the defendants, filed the present suit. Defendant No. 3 further pleaded that the land in R.S.No.106/6 has no direct access to Puntha Road situated in R.S.No.104, wherein the land in R.S. No. 104 was subdivided as R.S. No.104/4 and given to the ryots. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff never enjoyed any part of the dimma covered by R.S.No.106/5, in which palmyra, coconut, and other trees are grown, and that the same belonged to defendant No.2. The plaintiff, with an intention to grab the said property of defendant No. 2, is harassing them.

                  Defendant No.3 pleaded that the full extent of land in R.S.No.106/6 is Ac. 0.88 cents, out of which the western side measuring Ac.0.20 cents fell to the share of Vytla Krishnavenamma. Under a registered partition deed dated 17.11.1963, by reducing the terms of the partition into writing, the said Vytla Krishnavenamma gifted the said property, along with other properties, to her daughter, Koduri Seetha Rama Lakshmi, under a registered gift deed dated 20.05.1970. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued pattadar passbooks in the year 1980. He further pleaded that Koduri Seetha Rama Lakshmi became the owner of Ac.2.44 cents of land in R.S.No.106/5 and the western land measuring Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6, which were later sold through three different sale deeds dated 17.08.1981 in favour of the defendants.

                  Consequently, the western land measuring Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6 fell to the share of defendant No.3.

                  He further pleaded that the excess extent of land shown in the plaintiff‟s documents, i.e., Ac.0.73 cents, actually pertains to Ac.0.68 cents. On verification of the revenue records and documents of both parties, the Tahsildar, K. Gangavaram, issued a certificate dated 24.01.2010, certifying that the plaintiff is entitled to Ac. 0.68 cents of land and that defendant No. 3 is entitled to Ac.0.20 cents of land out of the total extent of Ac.0.88 cents in R.S.No.106/6 situated at Panangipalli Village. Thus, the entire extent of land in R.S.No.106/5 belongs to the defendants, and as such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues for trial:

                  1) Whether the plaint plan is true and correct?

                  2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

                  3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for? and

                  4) To what relief ?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-15 were marked. Exs.X-1 to X-4 were also marked.

10. The learned trial Judge 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.01 of 2015, wherein the following points came up for consideration:

                  1) Whether the plaintiff is having right, title over plaint schedule property which is equivalent to „P‟ marked property of the plaint plan including the red marked portion of Dimma altogether comes to an extent of Ac.0.73 cents covering under S.No.106/6?

                  2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled consequential relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for? and

                  3) To what relief?

11. The learned first appellate Judge after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.125 of 2010 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

12. On hearing both sides‟ counsel at the time of admission of the second appeal on 12.04.2019, a learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:

                  1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is legally right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court wherein the suit for declaration of Easementary right, title and injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property is dismissed?

                  2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in declaring the suit for declaration of Easementary right without there being any pleading of enjoyment for continuation period as required under law? and

                  3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit by reversing the judgment of the trial court without confirming that the plaintiff established his right without depending on the weakness of defendants case?

                  On 31.01.2026, during the course of hearing, this Court framed the following additional substantial question law:

                  1) Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Judge that the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property for a period of 15 years is legally sustainable in the absence of any pleadings?

13. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel representing Sri G.V.Gangadhar, learned counsel for the respondent /plaintiff.

14. The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate Court, which is final Court of facts, except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.

                  In the case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh(AIR 1993 SC 398), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.”

                  In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujart(AIR 1999 SC 471), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.”

15. The appellants herein are the defendants; the defendant No.3 is none other than the son of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.125 of 2010. The respondent/plaintiff approached the trial Court seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.0.73 cents situated in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village, and also for the consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. In a suit for declaration of title, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has valid right and title in respect of the total extent of property of Ac.0.73 cents in the plaint schedule.

16. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same is well settled in the catena of judgments by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In a case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others((2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “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. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff‟s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.”

17. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.106/6 in an extent of Ac.0.73 cents at Panangipalli Village and his father Vytla Veeraraghava Rao, got the same under a registered gift deed said to have been executed by his paternal grandmother Buchamma vide registered gift deed dated 24.06.1967, and the said registered gift settlement deed is filed and got exhibited as Ex.A-1 before the trial Court. As seen from Ex.A-1, the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, Buchamma, who is the wife of Vytla Venkata Krishnaiah, executed a registered gift deed for Ac.0.73 cents out of Ac.0.88 cents of land in Sy.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village. It is undisputed by both sides that the full extent of land in Sy.No.106/6 is Ac.0.88 cents.

18. It is specifically pleaded by the defendant No.3 in the written statement, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, that in Ex.A-1 document, the excess extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land is mentioned in the document of the father of the plaintiff, i.e., in Ex.A-1 gift deed, instead of Ac.0.68 cents, an extent of Ac.0.73 cents is mentioned in Ex.A-1. As stated supra, the defendant No.3 is none other than the son of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the specific case of the defendants that the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff is Vytla Pattabhi Ramanna, and the said Vytla Pattabhi Ramanna has got two sons, Veera Raghava Rao and Viswa Sundara Rao. The said Veera Raghava Rao is none other than the father of the plaintiff. The defendants further pleaded in the written statement itself that the said Pattabhi Ramanna has got a brother by name Brahmaiah, and after the death of the said Brahmaiah, there was a partition of the properties in the year 1963 in the family of Vytla Pattabhi Ramanna. The defendants further pleaded that in the said partition, Vytla Pattabhi Ramanna and his sons took one share, and the widow of Brahmaiah took the remaining share, and in that partition an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6 out of the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents fell to the share of Vytla Krishnavenamma, who is the widow of Brahmaiah, and the remaining 0.68 cents fell to the share of the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, and so, any documents obtained by the plaintiff in excess of Ac.0.68 cents of land in Sy.No.106/6 are not valid documents. In order to prove the defence, they relied on the registration extract of the registered partition deed and got it exhibited as Ex.B-1, and Ex.B-1 is undisputed by the plaintiff. The defence put forth by the defendants, as stated supra, is well supported by Ex.B-1.

19. The recitals of Ex.B-1 partition deed dated 20.11.1963 clearly go to show that from out of the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village, Ac.0.20 cents fell to the share of Vytla Krishnavenamma, and the remaining extent of Ac.0.68 cents fell to the share of the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, Vytla Venkata Krishnaiah. Ex.B-1 clearly goes to show that the son of Vytla Venkata Krishnaiah by name Pattabhi Ramanna and his sons Veeraraghava Rao (father of the plaintiff), and Viswa Sundara Rao, and the widow of Vytla Brahamaiah, by name Vytla Krishnavenamma, partitioned the properties, and in the said partition Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6 out of Ac.0.88 cents fell to the share of Krishnavenamma, and the branch of Vytla Krishnaiah remained with Ac.0.68 cents only in R.S.No.106/6 in the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents. But the wife of Vytla Venkata Krishnaiah executed a gift deed for Ac.0.73 cents instead of Ac.0.68 cents in R.S.No.106/6 along with other properties in other survey numbers under Ex.A- 1 gift settlement deed. The dispute is with regard to the suit schedule property only, namely, situated in R.S.No.106/6, but not other properties.

20. It is the specific case of the defendants that the original owner of Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6, by name Vytla Krishnavenamma, executed a registered gift deed in favour of her daughter Seetha Rama Lakshmi on 30.05.1970 under Ex.B-9 along with other properties. Ex.B-5 is the registration extract of the sale deed said to have been executed by Seetha Rama Lakshmi, which goes to show that Seetha Rama Lakshmi sold an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6 along with other properties to Kothapalli Venkata Rao, who is the junior paternal uncle of the defendant No.3, i.e., the brother of the defendant No.1. The evidence of the D.W.1 clearly goes to show that subsequent to the execution of registered sale deed in favour of Venkata Rao, an oral partition of their ancestral properties between his father and his junior paternal uncle took place, and in the said partition an extent of Ac.0.20 cents fell to the share of his father and later fell to his share. The same is well supported by the documentary evidence produced by the defendants. The plaintiff failed to prove that the donor under Ex.A-1 has right and title in an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6, but not Ac.0.68 cents. In Ex.A-1, the source of title is not at all mentioned by the donor, i.e., the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, in favour of the father of the plaintiff.

21. As stated supra, the plaintiff approached the Court for seeking the relief of declaration of title; therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove that he has a valid right and title in the total extent of Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6. It is relevant to refer to the own admissions of the plaintiff in his evidence in cross- examination, which are as follows:–

                  The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that the survey line is the boundary line between his property and the properties of the defendants in respect of the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents of land in Sy.No.106/6, and the property devolved upon him through Buchamma, who is his paternal grandmother, and there is no mention about the document number in Ex.A-1 about the source of acquisition of property by Buchamma, and to his knowledge, Buchamma purchased the property, and the same is a self-acquired property. He further admits that there was a partition in the property on 17.11.1963 by way of a registered document between the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and his sons and Krishnavenamma, and Ex.B-1 is the registration extract of the partition deed. He further admits that he is not having any documentary evidence to show that Buchamma has Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6, and he has not verified the revenue records to ascertain whether Buchamma has right over Ac.0.73 cents or not, even after the filing of the written statement by the defendants.

22. The plaintiff himself admitted about the source of the title of the defendant for Ac.0.20 cents of land in Sy.No.106/6. P.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that Seetha Rama Lakshmi is none other than the daughter of Krishnavenamma, and she executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter on 30.05.1970 by giving her entire property, including Ac.0.20 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6, by way of gift. He further admits that Ex.B-2 is the pattadar passbook issued by the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram, in the name of Seetha Rama Lakshmi. He pleaded ignorance about the pattadar passbook obtained by Seetha Rama Lakshmi. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff is not having a valid title for the extent of Ac.0.73 cents of land, at best, the plaintiff is having a valid title for Ac.0.68 cents of land in Sy.No.106/6, and the same is undisputed by the defendants. It is the admitted case of the defendants that the plaintiff is having a valid title only in Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6, but not in Ac.0.73 cents of land as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. The material on record reveals that instead of obtaining the gift deed for Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6, the father of the plaintiff obtained the gift deed for Ac.0.73 cents of land from his mother. Therefore, without having a valid title in the remaining Ac.0.05 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6, the donor executed a registered gift deed for Ac.0.73 cents instead of Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6 in favour of the father of the plaintiff.

23. P.W.2 stated that he knows the landed properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and the plaintiff is having Ac.0.73 cents of land at Panangipalli Village. But, in his evidence in cross-examination, he admits that he has not visited the plaint schedule property during twenty (20) years, and he cannot say for which part of Ac.0.73 cents of land is the disputed property. As per his own evidence, he has not visited the suit schedule property since twenty years. The specific case of the defendants is that the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, Vytla Pattabhi Ramanna, has got two sons, Veeraraghava Rao and Viswa Sundar Rao, and the said Pattabhi Ramanna has got one brother by name Brahmaiah, and after the death of the said Brahmaiah, there was a partition of the properties in the year 1963 under Ex.B-1 between the family of Veeraraghava Rao and the widow of Brahmaiah, and a registered partition deed was executed by Vytla Veeraraghava Rao and his sons and Krishnavenamma, and in the said partition an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6 fell to the share of Vytla Krishnavenamma out of the total extent of Ac.0.88 cents of land, and the remaining extent of Ac.0.68 cents fell to the share of the branch of Vytla Veeraraghava Rao, i.e., the branch of the plaintiff, and the same is well supported by the documentary evidence produced by the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the plaintiff got revenue documents, viz., pattadar passbook and land revenue receipts for Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6, therefore, he is having a valid right and possession in the total extent of Ac.0.73 cents, but not in Ac.0.68 cents of land. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the full extent in R.S.No.106/6 of Panangipalli Village is Ac.0.88 cents, and it is evident that an extent of Ac.0.20 cents was given by the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff and his brothers in R.S.No.106/6 to Vytla Venkata Krishnavenamma. Therefore, at best, the plaintiff‟s grandfather retained only Ac.0.68 cents in R.S.No.106/6 in the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents, but not Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6. But the plaintiff has approached the trial Court for seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of Ac.0.73 cents instead of Ac.0.68 cents in R.S.No.106/6, though he is having a valid right and title in Ac.0.68 cents in R.S.No.106/6.

24. D.W.3 is the Tahsildar, K.Gangavaram; he deposed in his evidence that as per the revenue record, an extent of land in R.S.No.106/6 is Ac.0.88 cents, and as per the revenue register, Ac.0.68 cents of land in the said survey number is in the name of the plaintiff, and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land is in the name of the defendant No.3, and he also filed Form 1-B Adangal and registered copies of the B-Register, and Exs.X-1 to X-4 are marked through the Tahsildar/D.W.3. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff is having the title of Ac.0.68 cents only in R.S.No.106/6, but not to Ac.0.73 cents. The defendant No.3 is having a valid title on the remaining extent of Ac.0.20 cents in the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents in R.S.No.106/6. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of title for Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6, the plaintiff is having title in Ac.0.68 cents in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village.

25. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the possession of the plaintiff in Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.106/6 is admitted by the defendants. Unless and until the entries in revenue records are set aside by the appellate authority in the Revenue Department, the plaintiff is having a valid title for an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village. Here, both the parties to the suit are relying on the pattadar passbooks issued by the Revenue authorities, and both the parties are relying on the documents issued by the Revenue Department. The defendant No.3 also got the pattadar passbook for Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.106/6; the plaintiff got the pattadar passbook for Ac.0.73 cents in the same survey number, though the full extent of the said survey number is Ac.0.88 cents. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that D.W.1 himself admitted that the plaintiff is in the possession of Ac.0.73 cents; therefore, he is entitled to the relief of declaration of title for Ac.0.73 cents. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. In the written statement itself, the defendant pleaded that the father of the plaintiff got a gift deed for an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village instead of Ac.0.68 cents, and an excess extent of Ac.0.05 cents was mentioned in the document of the plaintiff, but the donor under Ex.A-1 is having title only to an extent of Ac.0.68 cents in Sy.No.106/6, at best, the donor could execute a gift deed for Ac.0.68 cents only. No doubt, D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that he is in the possession of an extent of Ac.0.15 cents, and the remaining extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land is in the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant specifically pleaded and deposed in his evidence that he is having valid title in Ac.0.20 cents of land. Taking into consideration of stray sentences in the deposition of the witness, the entire evidence of a witness cannot be thrown out.

26. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the First Appellate Judge came to a wrong conclusion in its judgment that the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property for a period of fifteen (15) years by way of adverse possession, i.e., more than twelve (12) years, in an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of declaration of title for Ac.0.73 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6. As seen from the judgment of the First Appellate Judge, the First Appellate Judge held in its judgment that since the date of Ex.A-1, i.e., from 24.04.1961 onwards, the plaintiff has been enjoying Ac.0.73 cents of land for more than fifty (50) years, and even assuming that Ex.A-3 pattadar passbook is taken into consideration, the plaintiff has paid taxes for Ac.0.73 cents of land, and the plaintiff has been in possession for more than twelve (12) years, and that the plaintiff establishes that he is having right and title over the said Ac.0.05 cents of land in addition to the Ac.0.68 cents of land in Sy.No.106/6. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.0.05 cents of land by way of adverse possession; there is no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff acquired title for Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6 and he has been in possession of another Ac.0.05 cents of land in the same survey number since more than twelve (12) years and that his title is perfected by way of adverse possession. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that by virtue of gift deed said to have been executed in favour of his father, he is having right and title for Ac.0.73 cents of land, but not for Ac.0.68 cents of land. As stated supra, the full extent of property in Sy.No.106/6 is Ac.0.88 cents, out of which the defendant No.3 is having title in Ac.0.20 cents in the said survey number, and the plaintiff is having title in Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6, and the plaintiff is not having any title for other Ac.0.05 cents of land in addition to Ac.0.68 cents of land in the same survey number.

27. The law is well settled that “The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet, which means 'no person can transfer/pass a better title than what he possesses in the property so transferred‟. Given the fact that transfer of an immovable property is governed by this principle, the registering authority when receives a document and registers it, does not decide title of the persons executing the document. Therefore, mere registration of a document will not confer any new title, and in the case of any title disputes arising out of such registrations, they are subject to and decided under the provisions of various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable property”.

28. In the case at hand, by virtue of the registration partition deed dated 20.11.1963, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff had right and title in an extent of Ac.0.68 cents of land out of the full extent of Ac.0.88 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village, and Krishnavenamma had right and title in the remaining Ac.0.20 cents of land out of Ac.0.88 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6. Therefore, the paternal grandmother did not have any right to execute a registered gift deed on 24.04.1967 in favour of the father of the plaintiff for an extent of Ac.0.73 cents, since the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff had right in Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6, situated at Panangipalli Village. Therefore, at best, the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff can execute a registered gift deed in favour of the father of the plaintiff for an extent of Ac.0.68 cents, but not for an extent of Ac.0.73 cents, since she had right and title for an extent of Ac.0.68 cents only.

29. The law is well settled that “mere possession of land would not ripen into possessory title” for the said purpose possessor must have „Animus Possidendi‟ and hold that the land adverse to the title of the true owner. It is also well settled that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario,” i.e., peaceful, open and continuous possession. The person who set up the plea of adverse possession must establish the physical fact of exclusive possession and the Animus Possidendi to hold as an owner in exclusion of the actual owner. As the person who set up a plea of adverse possession tries to defeat the rights of the true owner, the burden lies on him to plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. In the case at hand, it is not the specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint itself that by virtue of adverse possession he is in possession of Ac.0.05 cents of land and by virtue of documentary evidence, he is having title in Ac.0.68 cents of land. Therefore, the said finding given by the learned First Appellate Judge that the plaintiff is having title by way of adverse possession for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.106/6 is nothing but a perverse finding.

30. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that he is having title in Ac.0.73 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village. The plaintiff is having title in an extent of Ac.0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.106/6 at Panangipalli Village. The plaintiff suppressed the truth and approached the Court with unclean hands and got filed the suit with a specific plea that he is having title to Ac.0.73 cents of land. But, the fact remains that he is having title in Ac.0.68 cents of land only. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.0.73 cents as sought by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration, he is also not entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction. The trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record came to right conclusion and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court, without appreciating the evidence on record in a proper manner, came to a wrong conclusion and allowed the first appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

31. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018, in A.S.No.01 of 2015, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, is hereby set aside.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.