MOHD AFZAL Vs. SHAIK HABEEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Venkata Reddy representing Sri. S. Niranjan Reddy, the counsel for the appellant and Sri. Muralinarayana Bung the counsel for the respondents-defendants. The unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved by the judgments and decrees made in O.S.No. 5510 of 1987 dated 19-04-1995 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad and A.S. No. 110 of 1995 dated 08-11-1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court. Hyderabad, had preferred the present second appeal. The following substantial questions of law are raised and are argued by the counsel at length, which are referred to as hereunder.

(2.) Sri. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant had contended that the appellant got this property under a registered agreement, which in fact was never acquired and never vested in any of the respondents who represent the Committee and in this view of the matter the appellants is entitled to maintain his possession and dismissal of the suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff had filed to establish his title cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this court though the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also by the appellate court and had pointed out that by virtue of registered agreement in favour of the appellant-plaintiff executed by the true owner, the appellant-plaintiff can maintain his possession since the true owner continued to be true owner of this portion of the property and on the pretext of expressing a doubt, the relief cannot be negatived and in this view of the matter, the courts below had totally erred in refusing the relief of perpetual injunction to the appellant-plaintiff.

(3.) On the contrary the counsel representing the respondents-defendants had contended that a mere agreement though a registered on definitely would not confer any title and such party cannot take shelter even under Sec. 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882, and in this view of the matter, findings in accordance with law had been recorded by both the courts below which need not be disturbed in a second appeal. The learned counsel on facts also had contended that this property is also covered by the property, which had been acquired for the purposes of respondents-defendants.