LACHMAREDDY Vs. SHAMRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who reversed the deree of the Munsif Magistrate, Vicarabad, in O. S. No.17/1 of 1959.

(2.) The plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the Second Appeal, instituted the suit for possession of the suit property with mesne profits. The ist defendant-appellant contested the suit on tht ground that the plaintiffs had conveyed the suit Properties to him under an unstamped and unregistered sale deed of 25th May, 1950, and that he has been in possesstion of the property under it, Defendents 2 to 4 are proforma parties and have nor raised any contest in either of the Courts below. They have chosen to remain absent in this Court also. The trial Court dismissed the suit. It was satisfied that the plantiffs had conveyed the property to the 1st denfendet under un stamped and unregistered sale-deed dated 25th May, 1950. This fact was sougut to be proved by the 1st defendant not by the production of the unstamped and unregistered sale deed but by secondary evidence of its contents. According to him, the unstamped. and unregistered sale deed was lost and, therefore, he sought the leave of Court to adduce secondary evidence of its concerns which the trial Court granted It was on the strengh of this secondary evidence that that trial Court held that the plaintifls had parted with the property in favour of the 1st defendant.'

(3.) On appeal by the Plaintifffs, the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, held thit the secondary evidence ought not to have been received, and that on the basis of it the suit ought not to have been dismissed. This legal aspect of the ruace led to a reversal of the trial Court's decision and a decree tor possession being granted in favour of the plaintiffs In this second appeal the 1st defendant canvasses the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate Court.