KANEEZ FATHIMA Vs. SAMRU SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. No. 265 of 1999 are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The suit is filed, for the relief of perpetual injunction, against the respondents. The appellants pleaded that the suit schedule property, bearing House No. 3-6-13, situated at Adarshnagar, Karimnagar, was owned by one Mr. Ali Nawaz and he sold the same in favour of the 2nd appellant on 05. 10. 1998. The 2nd appellant is said to have gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st appellant, under a gift deed, dated 06. 04. 1999. They complained that the respondents started interfering with the possession over the property, without any basis.

(2.) RESPONDENTS filed written statement opposing the claim of the appellants. It was pleaded that the father of defendants 2 and 3, by name Ali Mohammed, was the original owner of the property and he, in turn, had gifted the same, orally, in favour of the 1st defendant. O. S. No. 515 of 1989 was filed by the 1st defendant, against her father, for declaration of title, in respect of the suit property. Almost a consent decree came to be passed on 22. 06. 1989 and the judgment and decree therein were filed as Exs. B. 1 and B. 2. It was alleged that though the subject matter of Exs. B. 1 and B. 2 is the property, bearing No. 3-6-14, two house Nos. 3-6-13 and 14 were assigned to the same premises and subsequently, a new number, being 3-6-21, came to be assigned to the property under Ex. B. 6. Through its judgment, dated 21. 07. 2003, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Appellants filed A. S. No. 53 of 2003 in the Court of III Additional District judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was dismissed on 08. 09. 2005. Hence, this Second appeal.

(3.) SRI V. L. N. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Courts below have proceeded on totally impermissible lines, while adjudicating the dispute, between the parties. He contends that both the courts have concentrated on the question of title and hardly any finding was recorded, as to the possession, which alone becomes relevant and important in a matter of this nature. Learned counsel submits that the view expressed by the courts below that the possession without title cannot be accepted, is opposed to settled principles of law.