P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) INTRODUCTION: challenge is made by the unsuccessful appellants/plaintiffs who were non-suited by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, in O. S. No. 318/96 dated 28-1-2002. The suit was instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration that they are the lawful owners of premises bearing No. 8-2-624/a/l/2 and 8-2-624/a/l/ 3, between Road Nos. 10 and 11 of Banjara hills, Hyderabad, formerly known as Plot no. 83 in S. No. l 17, Shaikpet Village, within hyderabad West, for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents and servants from making any construction, for a mandatory injunction to demolish and remove the constructions already made and also for such other suitable reliefs. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of the 1st plaintiff as PW-1 and also the evidence of DW-1, the 1st defendant, had been recorded on Commission. Exs. A-1 to A-14 and Exs. B-1 to B-15 were marked on behalf of the respective parties and the learned Judge after recording the findings found Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 against appellants/plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that they failed to prove their right and possession over the suit property and thereby they are not entitled for declaration of right, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction and consequently dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred the present C. C. C. A.

( 2 ) INCIDENTALLY it may be referred to here that pending this Appeal certain interlocutory applications i. e. , C. C. C. A. M. P. Nos. 6/2005, 7/2005, 14/2005, 15/2005 and 114/2005 were moved praying for passing of certain interim orders against non-parties to the litigation, to implead such parties in the application complaining violation of interim orders and also praying for permission to examine the mother of the appellants/plaintiffs. Certain interim orders had been granted for a limited period which are being extended from time to time.

( 3 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Anjappa, the learned Counsel representing the appellants /plaintiffs : sri Anjappa, the learned Counsel representing the appellants/plaintiffs had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Judge and had also commented how the said findings are not in accordance with law. The Counsel also pointed out the non-consideration of the documentary evidence in proper perspective and the consideration of inadmissible evidence and also total omission of consideration of certain documents which have material bearing on the result of the suit. The learned Counsel pointed out that the learned Judge had given undue importance to corrections made in the documents and also the rectification of plot number. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in a suit of this nature, the evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs and the evidence of the respondents/defendants may have to be weighed in a balanced manner and the learned Trial Judge had concentrated in appreciating the evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs alone totally disregarding the evidence of DW-1 since the evidence of DW-1 would definitely go to show that she has no right or marketable title to the suit property and even if such property is available to her it may be under a different survey number and definitely not the plaint schedule property. The Counsel also pointed out that Exs. A-1 to A-3 clearly refer S. No. l 17 and Plot No. 83 admeasuring 3633 sq. yards which was purchased by the mother of the appellants/ plaintiffs on 27 Farvardi 1355 Fasli dated 27-2-1945 and the same was produced from lawful custody and the learned Counsel also pointed out to the vendors title on 26 Amardad 1354 Fasli. The Counsel also would maintain that the mistake relating to plot number was only a mistake of fact which had been duly corrected. The learned counsel commented that the findin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document