AMINA SULTANA ABBASI Vs. D RAJALINGAM JATTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed O.S.No.3118 of 1982, in the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the respondents, initially for the relief of perpetual injunction. Thereafter, the prayer was amended, incorporating the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that the suit plot, admeasuring 300 sq.yards, in Sy.No.168 of Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, was purchased by her under a sale deed dated 25.4.1963, from one Sri Gayasuddin Khan, and ever since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was alleged that the 1st respondent, who is working as a constable in the Police Department, tried to occupy the land high handedly, and attempted to put a temporary hut on it. She alleged that the local police did not take any action on the complaint submitted by her. On finding that the plot was occupied by the 1st respondent, she got amended the suit, for the relief of recovery of possession.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter respectively, of the 1st respondent. A common written statement was filed by them. It was pleaded that the 2nd respondent purchased the suit plot, through sale deed dated 6.5.1982, from the original owner, and they did not encroach into any property of the appellant. Through its judgment, dated 26.9.1989, the trial court dismissed the suit. There upon the appellant filed A.S.No.1 of 1990, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 24.7.1995. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant proved her title, by filing the sale deed dated 25.4.1963, marked as Ex.A-2, and by examining the concerned witnesses. He contends that even assuming that the sale deed, under which the 2nd respondent purchased the property is valid, it cannot confer any title, since it came to be executed almost two decades after the purchase of the property, by the appellant. He submits that the courts below did not apply the settled principles of law, and ought to have granted the relief, as prayed for.