NALINI NARAIN Vs. PRABHAVATHI REDDY RAVI RAVI PRABHAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1990 passed in OS No.335 of 2003 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Temp), whereby and where under, the suit filed by the first respondent herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and damages was decreed.

(2.) The appellants 1 to 4 herein are defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 respectively and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, respondents 2 and 3 herein are defendants 3 and 4 respectively before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. Brief facts of the case:

(3.) The first defendant filed written statement and denied the material averments made by the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, he has no knowledge about the alleged purchase of the suit schedule property by the mother of the plaintiff through registered Sale Deed dated 19.5.1965 and also with regard to the declarations filed by her father under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and about the registered Gift Deed dated 13.3.1979 said to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. THE specific case of the first defendant is that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property and that there was neither sign board on the site displaying the name of the plaintiff nor any boundary stones were fixed and the entire area was rocky with boulders. Her specific case is that defendant No.4 was at the site and he was in factual possession of the suit schedule property. It is also her case that when she ascertained the municipal records from the year 1965 to 1979 the names of defendant No.3 and her erstwhile partner -Ahmed Bee were shown as actual owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. It is also her case that the Encumbrance Certificates obtained from the Office of the Sub-Registrar for the period between 1950 and 1958 and from the year 1959 to 1981 in respect of suit schedule property shown 'NIL' encumbrances. It is also her case that she has purchased the 'B' schedule property from the original owners through registered Sale Deed dated 21.6.1979 vide Ex.B6 for a valuable consideration and thereafter sold 410 square yards of land in 'B' Schedule Property to defendants 5 and 6 on 12.8.1980.