SARDAR PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. SYED ALI MUSA RAZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant who is the Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.331/80 (old 54/78) has challenged the Judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt. 15-1-1983 passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3 who were the plaintiffs in the suit for recovery of the possession of the suit property after demolishing the structure thereon and by evicting the defendants therefrom. The respondent No.4 herein is the defendant No.2 in the suit. The suit property is a portion of S.No.129/55 (old) New Sy.No.165 to an extent of 2125 sq. yards out of 3500 sq. yards and Ac.3-26 guntas situated at Kancha Tattikhana Sivar, Shaikpet village, Banjara Hills, (Jubilee Hills) Hyderabad described in the plaint schedule. One Saraf-e-Khas Mubarak, its original pattadar transferred it in the name of the plaintiffs' father Syed Shah Abdul Khader on 25-Azur 1340 Fasli (30-10-1930) and he in turn transferred it to his wife Fathima Soghra under a settlement deed dt. 10th Aban 1347 Fasli(5-9-1938). Fathima Soghra died on 24-7-1973 leaving behind her the plaintiffs, her children, as legal heirs, who succeeded to the said land after her death. It was alleged that the plaintiffs' father and thereafter their mother Fathima Soghra was in continuous possession of the said land. It appears that one Agamaiah or Agaiah was managing the suit survey number leasing out and collecting rent from tenants at the instance of the owners thereof. It was alleged that the Defendant No.1 without any right, title or interest occupied the suit land to an extent of 2125 sq.yards during the fourth week of 1965 and put up a construction on the ground that he had been put into possession by Defendant No.2 and in spite of the repeated oral requests, the 1st defendant did not demolish the illegal construction nor handed over possession of the suit land to the plaintifs and therefore they have to file the suit for possession, for damages at the rate of Rs.250/- and for demolition of the illegal construction.

(2.) Both the defendants by filing the written statement resisted the suit. According to them the said Agamaiah was the owner of the suit survey number with an extent of 3500 sq. yards and he entered into an agreement of sale dt. 16-8-1965 in favour of 2nd defendant and sold it to him under the sale deed dt. 25-10-1965 and put him in possession of the same. The 2nd defendant in turn sold a portion of it to the extent of 2125sq. yards being the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 under the rcgd. sale deed dt. 24-12-1965. It was contended that defendant No.2 was put into possession of the land by Agamaiah under the agreement of sale and later on Defendant No.2 put Defendant No.1 in possession by virtue of the sale transaction. It appears that the Defendant No.2 after obtaining permission from the police had arranged for blasting the stones in the suit land, that the Defendant No.1 after obtaining the approved plan and licence put up a building on the suit land and he has been in possession of the same since then. They have contended that they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land for value without notice of any right or title of any other person as alleged. In the alternative they have contended that Agamaiah, thereafter Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 have been in continuous possession of suit survey number and the suit land for over 12 years and therefore they have perfected their title to it by adverse possession. They have denied the right, title or possession of the suit survey number and the suit land either with the father of the plaintiffs, their mother or the plaintiffs themselves at any time.

(3.) The parties went to trial on the following issues which were settled wherein the Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as per P.Ws.2 and 3 and DefcndantNo.1 examined himself as D.W.1, Defendant No.2 as D.W.2 and a witnessas per D.W.3 respectively. By way of documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-8 for theplaintiffs and Exs.B-1 to B-22 for thedefendants were marked.