( 1 ) HEARD both the counsel and also sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, amicus curiae.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff before the court below in a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, is the appellant herein.

( 3 ) FOR convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 4 ) THE plaint averments in brief are that the plaintiff was the owner of the house bearing Nos. 12-1-1486 and 12-1-1455, in a total area of 320 Sq. yards situate at shantinagar, North Lalaguda, secunderabad; that originally Plot Nos. 179 and 181 in Sy. No. 222 totally admeasuring 320 Sq. yards was allotted to one Mr. Kistiah; that on 10-1 -1976 the plaintiff purchased the said plots and extent for a consideration of rs. 15,000/- under notarized sale deed; that in the said notarized sale deed, it was agreed by both the parties that after some time a regular sale deed duly registered will be executed; that thereafter the vendor mr. Kistiah died without executing sale deed; that ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff had been residing in the four rooms and open place; that she has been paying water, electricity and other municipal taxes; that the plaintiff has also been paying various other taxes and; that she held ration card.

( 5 ) IT is further averred that the defendant filed RC. No. 135/1994 on the file of Principal rent Controller, Secunderabad, making the husband of the plaintiff as a party tenant. The matter was contested by the husband of the plaintiff and eventually the rent control proceedings ended in favour of the defendant. The appeal filed in R. A. No. 410/1995 also went against the plaintiff and thereafter in the revision in c. R. P. No. 218/1999 the husband of the plaintiff lost the case. The ultimate result was that the defendant was declared as landlord and the husband of the plaintiff as tenant. In other words, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and the plaintiff s husband had been finally concluded in the rent control proceedings. The further averment of the plaintiff is that her husband did not disclose the earlier rent control proceedings and she came to know about the said proceedings only when the defendant was going to execute the order against the husband of the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property. Hence, the present suit came to be filed seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property.

( 6 ) THE defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that late Kistiah was never the owner of the plot. The certificate issued by the S. C. ST. , B. C. and Weaker sections Association or notarized documents were not recognized for property affairs. Originally the sister of the plaintiff was the tenant of the suit schedule premises and on her recommendation two front rooms were let out to the husband of the plaintiff. Further the defendant denies the plaint averment that the plaintiff got electrical connection in 1976 and that her husband deposed in the earlier rent control proceedings in Rc. No. 135/1994 that he had been paying electrical charges in the name of the defendant only. It is stated that mere appearance of the name of the plaintiff in the electoral rolls is not conclusive. It is further stated that there is nothing unusual that the names of the tenants living in a particular house would also appear in the electoral rolls. It is further contended that appearance of the names in the ration cards does not confer any title or ownership on the tenants. Further the defendant relied heavily on the earlier rent control proceedings, appeal and consequential orders passed in C. R. P. No. 218/1999. It is further averred that pursuant to the conclusion of the rent control proceedings, and in obedience to the final orders thereof, rent due was Rs. 25,000. 00 and only part of rent of Rs. 6,000. 00 was deposited at the time of filing of appeal in R. A. No. 410/1995 by the husband of the plaintiff.

( 7 ) UPON the above averments, th