AKKIRAJU SARASWATHI Vs. MOHD JEHANGIR PASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.1.2004, in A.S. No.110 of 2000, on the file of I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. A.S. No.110 of 2000 was filed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.9.2000, in O.S. No.545 of 1991, on the file of XVIII Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. The suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-1st respondent herein, for the relief of declaration that the total area conveyed under sale deed, dated 15.4.1959, in favour of the fourth defendant, is 600 square yards and not 1600 square yards, and for consequential injunction restraining the Defendants 4 to 8, from interfering with his possession of the area, over and above 600 square yards, covered by the deed. Defendants 8 and 9, the subsequent purchasers from Defendant No.4, are the appellants herein. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit

(2.) According to the plaintiff, his father by name Mohd. Sharjuddin and two others by name Narsimhulu Mudiraj and Mohd. Kareemulla, have jointly acquired the lands in Sy.Nos.61 and 62 of Hasmatpet, Tirumalgiri Village, Secunderabad, through sale deeds, and divided the same into 150 plots, duly leaving space for roads and parks. Plot Nos.111/A and 134/A, admeasuring 300 square yards each, were sold through a sale deed, dated 15.3.1959, in favour of the fourth defendant, since dead, represented by his sons, Defendants 10 to 12. He pleaded that out of 150 plots, 120 were sold, and the balance of the plots were divided among the three partners, and that an extent of 4500 square yards, adjoining Plot Nos.111/A and 134/A, was allotted to the share of his father.

(3.) He stated that the fourth defendant altered the extent in the sale deed, from 600 square yards to 1600 square yards, and filed certain fabricated documents before the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, with a view to transfer the same in favour of the Defendants 8 and 9 herein. He submitted a complaint before a Criminal Court against the fourth defendant alleging fabrication of the documents, and to overcome the same, the fourth defendant approached the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally, Secunderabad, and got corrected the extent in the records. He stated that the Sub-Registrar-the third respondent herein, had corrected the records of his office, in relation to the documents, without notice to him and based on such corrections, Defendants 4 to 8 are interfering with his possession.