KAREEMUDDIN KHAN MOHD Vs. SYED AZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants against the confirming judgments dismissing the suit brought for declaration of title and eviction of the sole defendant-respondent from Survey Nos. 138 and 139 respectively measuring Acs. 3-01 guntas and Acs. 2-26 guntas in Bagh Amberpet, Sarehekha Taluq Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The suit was brought on the pleading of the plaintiffs being the heirs of one Ameeruddin who, according to them, was the pattedar of the land and that after his death on 27th July, 1968, the plaintiffs had been mutated in respect of the land and Kami Izafa has been issued in their favour in 1969. Ameeruddin had sold from Survey No. 138 on 21-12-1962 by a registered sale deed Ex. B-2 an extent of 9,867 sq.yards to the defendant, and his brother Md. Shamsuddin Khan had sold on 29-5-1961 by a registered sale deed marked as Ex. B-1 12,500 sq. yards from Survey No. 139. The suit was filed to avoid the sales on the contention that the sales were void being hit by Section 47 of Andhra Pradesh (TelanganaArea)Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (referred hereinafter as 'the Act') and that Ex. B-l sale deed was also void as Shamsuddin Khan had no conveyable title in the land, the pattedar being Ameeruddin. Further, the pleadings of the plaintiffs-appellants were that the respondent fraudulently got mutation sanctioned in his favour in respect of the lands in 1978 and dispossessed the plaintiff's tenants from the suit land and changed the record without notice to them.

(2.) The suit was resisted by filing written statementstating that Ameeruddin was not the exclusive owner of the land and that the land had been inherited by both the brothers from the original owner, their father Bahadur Dil Jung and that they had partitioned the lands and sold the lands separately to the respondent. Defendant also otherwise contended to have perfected title in respect of the lands by adverse possession. During evidence, the defendant adopted a different stand of the land having been purchased by both the brothers through registered sale deed Ex. B-3 during their minority in 1325 Fasli (corresponding to 1915 A.D.). The appellants challenged such stand as being in variation of the pleading and further that Ex. B-3 sale deed was for Acs. 41-00 and did not show the Ex. D-1 and Ex. B-2 lands to be included therein, the boundaries of the land to be different and the disputed lands never to have been localised in course of the suit.

(3.) The learned trial Court framed 7 issues and two additional issues as follows: