MEHATAB BEGUM Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit, being O. S. No. 560 of 1977, on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits in respect of property bearing Municipal No. 22-7-514/3, situated at Miralam Mandi, Hyderabad (suit schedule property), was dismissed on 30. 11. 1987. Initially, the suit was filed against Riasatunnisa Begum, Bhagwan Das and Saleem (defendant Nos. 1 to 3 ). During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 died and defendant Nos. 4 to 13 came on record as legal representatives. Further, after death of defendant No. 7, her legal representatives were impleaded as defendant Nos. 14 and 15. In this judgment, parties are referred to by their status in the suit. Pleadings i

(2.) The case of plaintiff in brief may be noticed. Plaintiff purchased suit schedule property known as Zanani Devdi or Mahal Sarai under registered sale deed dated 19. 07. 1960. After the purchase, plaintiff spent Rs. 40,000.00 for improvements and let out portions to tenants. She also collected rents from the tenants from the date of purchase till 05. 02. 1977. She also initiated eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Rent Act, for brevity), and got evicted the tenants. She also filed suits for recovery of arrears of rents from the tenants. She obtained permit, dated 19. 03. 1968, from Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for improvements and has been paying property tax from 1965 to 1975. Defendant No. 1 claimed suit schedule property as her own in partition suit among her children. By reason of the orders dated 25. 03. 1976 in C. R. P. No. 198 of 1973, the plaintiff was impleaded in the partition suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 colluded, and in a fraudulent manner managed to take possession of suit schedule property by filing petitions under Rent Act without impleading the plaintiff. She, therefore, filed a claim petition under Rule 23 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (Rent Rules, for brevity ). However, the same was withdrawn, as learned Rent Controller cannot decide the question of title. Defendant No. 2 after getting an eviction order in collusion with defendant No. 1 in a fraudulent manner got evicted tenants of the plaintiff on 05. 02. 1977. After dispossessing plaintiff, building was demolished. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold portions of Zanani Devdi under registered sale deed dated 20. 10. 1977 in favour of Aslam Thereafter, defendant No. 2 sold plaintiff's property under registered sale deed dated 21. 04. 1977 in favour of defendant No. 3 by annexing wrong plan with incorrect area and incorrect boundaries. As plaintiff's property was sold by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, she is entitled for mesne profits and also damages for demolition of the property. Pleadings Ii