APHC010699002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO SECOND APPEAL No. BETWEEN: 1. METLA VENKATA KAMESWARARAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, AGED 52 YEARS, DOOR NO. 44 AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. METLA VENKATA VARAHA NARASIMHA RAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, LIG 356 H.B. COLONY, SEETHASMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. METLA SATYA SAI BHASKARARAO, S/o. LATE POLA AGED 39 YRS, DOOR No. 44 AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. METLA ROSHAN KUMAR, S/ DOOR NO. 44-37 VISAKHAPATNAM 5. METLA SURYA KANTHAM, W/ (DIED) DOOR N AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 6. CHIRUGUDU KALYANI, W/ NEAR SIVALAYAM, SANTHAMAMIDI, VISAKHAPATNAM 1. BANDARU PRASAD, s/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 48 years. Street Hawker, residing at M.Venkatapuram village in Gajapathinagaram mandal in Vizianagaram district. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 219/2026 METLA VENKATA KAMESWARARAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, AGED 52 YEARS, DOOR NO. 44-37-2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-16. METLA VENKATA VARAHA NARASIMHA RAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, LIG 356 H.B. COLONY, SEETHASMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM. METLA SATYA SAI BHASKARARAO, S/o. LATE POLA AGED 39 YRS, DOOR No. 44-37-2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-16. METLA ROSHAN KUMAR, S/o. LATE POLARAO, 43 YRS, 37-2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-16. METLA SURYA KANTHAM, W/o. LATE POLLARAO, 71 YRS, (DIED) DOOR No.44-37-2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM- 16. CHIRUGUDU KALYANI, W/o. GOVINDARAO, AGED 48 YRS NEAR SIVALAYAM, SANTHAMAMIDI, KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...APPELLANT(S) AND BANDARU PRASAD, s/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 48 years. Street Hawker, residing at M.Venkatapuram village in Gajapathinagaram mandal in Vizianagaram district. ...RESPONDENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO METLA VENKATA KAMESWARARAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, 2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, METLA VENKATA VARAHA NARASIMHA RAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, LIG 356 H.B. COLONY, METLA SATYA SAI BHASKARARAO, S/o. LATE POLARAO, 2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, . LATE POLARAO, 43 YRS, KAYYAPALEM, . LATE POLLARAO, 71 YRS, 2/A, SRINIVASANAGAR, . GOVINDARAO, AGED 48 YRS KURMANNAPALEM, ...APPELLANT(S) BANDARU PRASAD, s/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 48 years. Street Hawker, residing at M.Venkatapuram village in ...RESPONDENT 2 Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII of CPC is filed to set aside the decree and judgment dt. 29.04.2025 in Appeal Suit 45/2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge Court at Vizianagaram which confirms the decree and judgment dt. 09.04.2019 in O.S. 51/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. VENKATA SAKETH ROY VYDYULA The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit and respondent is the defendent in the suit. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to, as per their array in the suit. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property i.e., hut on the ground that the schedule property is ancestral property of Metla Polarao, on his demise, the same was devolved upon the plaintiffs who are the class one legal heirs of the deceased Metla Polarao, and it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that one Tupakula Satya Rao who is the relative of the plaintiffs, introduced the defendant as caste person and requested Metla Polarao, to provide shelter to the defendant in the plaint schedule property for making a hutment temporarily. Accordingly, on the request and advice of Tupakula Satya Rao, the defendant was permitted to lay a hutment on the condition that he will be the custodian of the property of the plaintiffs, as they are not dwelling in the village at M. Venkatapuram. 2. The suit was filed, inter alia, when the defendant was asked to vacate the premises by the father of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4; instead, the defendant started abusing the 5th plaintiff, who is the wife of Metla Polarao, and her family members in filthy language and also tried to assault the said Polarao. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 02.02.2011 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to vacate the hut and deliver vacant possession of the site to the plaintiffs. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for declaration and for recovery of vacant possession after evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property. 4 3. The defendant filed the written statement and averred that he purchased plaint scheduled property from Bandaru Ramamurthy, Bandaru Pydithalli and others on 28.07.1967 and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Due to an enormous increase of land rates, the plaintiffs, with a view to grab the site, asked the defendant to sell away the land for a paltry amount, for which the defendant refused and the plaintiffs bore grouse and filed this suit. And the property that was purchased by the defendant is Gramakantam land. And further stated that the plaint schedule property is not ancestral property of the plaintiffs, as they claim. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit as there are no bonafides in the suit. 4. Basing upon the rival contentions, the trial Court has framed the following issue for trial. “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of declaration and consequential recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant?” 5. The plaintiffs have examined PW1 to PW4 in respect of their case and the Defendant he himself examined as DW1 and he also examined DW 2 and 3. The trial Court has dismissed the suit after considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who stated that the defendant is in long possession of the suit schedule property, in addition the trial court observed that the plaintiffs haven’t filed any document to establish their right over the property and not adduced any evidence or there’s no proof that the property is ancestral property of Metla Polarao, or, his self acquired property, or, of any one of the 5 plaintiffs. Except issuing of legal notices, there is no other documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs acquired property from Metla Polarao by rule of inheritance. 6. Assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2019 in O.S. No.51 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the plaintiffs filed regular appeal under Section 96 CPC on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram. The Principal District Judge has dismissed the appeal inter alia observing that in a suit for declaration, the Plaintiff must show that he is having uninterrupted or undisputed title over the plaint schedule property; though, the Plaintiffs got examined P.Ws. 2 to 4 and all of them stated in favour of the defendant; and the suggestion of the defendants that the land is Gramakantam land, why the land is in the name of the defendant, was not explained by the Plaintiffs; and reinstated the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the plaintiffs. 7. Assailing the same, the present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, on the following substantial question of law: A. Whether the Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit for declaration by insisting upon strict documentary title, contrary to the settled principles applicable to ancestral and village properties? B. Whether the Courts below misapplied the law relating to permissive possession and burden of proof, by failing to examine whether the Respondent discharged the onus of providing an independent title? 6 C. Whether the Trial Court erred in law in dismissing the suit on the ground that the Plaintiffs failed to prove title, when no specific issue regarding proof of title was framed under Order XIV Rule 1 PC, and whether such omission vitiates the judgment as having caused prejudice to the Plaintiffs? D. Whether the concurrent findings suffer from perversity by ignoring material evidence and admissions, giving rise to substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC. 8. In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the Plaintiffs and they must establish that they are having title over the plaint schedule property, however, the plaintiffs have not filed any document or any revenue record (though revenue record does not confer title) to establish title . It’s the case of the defendant that suit schedule property is Gramakantam and he has purchased from vendor for valid sale consideration and the plaintiffs neither rebutted the said pleading nor filed any document evidence that the property is private ancestral property, to establish that the land is not a Gramakantam Land, as pleaded by the defendant. 9. The Apex Court in the case of the Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others1 held that “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 1 (2014) 2 SCC 269 7 ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” The above said judgment was referred in the case of Jagdish Prasad Patel (D) through Lrs., Vs Shivnath2. 10. The expression Grama kantam is defined as a spot of ground in a village for building huts upon. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the land is not a gramakantam land nor have they filed any documentary evidence that the plaint schedule property is private ancestral property. Except filing of Exs.A1 to A5 office copies of legal notices and acknowledgements, the plaintiffs did not file any oral or documentary evidence to prove that the plaint schedule property belonged to their ancestors. Plaintiffs have not discharged their burden to prove their case. The case of the appellants is that suit schedule property is an ancestral property. But the appellants have not adduced any evidence relating to that extent. Both the Courts have concurrently dismissed the suit filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. This Court does not find any substantial questions of law. Therefore, this Court has not seen any reason to interdict or intervene with the concurrent findings arrived by both the trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 11. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.03.2026 Harin 2 (2019) 6 SCC 82 8 246 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO S.A.No. 219 OF 2026 Date: 30-03-2026 Harin