L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. No. 164/76 are the appellants in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, some of the plaintiffs as well as defendants in the suit died and their legal representatives are brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as under : the father of plaintiffs, late Syed Shah abdul Khader, was the pattedar and landlord of land in S. No. 129/55 (old), New Survey no. 165, situated at Kancha Tattikhana sivar, village Shaikpet, Hyderabad Urban taluq, admeasuring Ac. 3-65 guntas. The patta was transferred by Sarfekhas Mubarak on 25th Azur, 1340 Fasli. Syed Shah Abdul khader executed a registered settlement deed dated 10th Aban. 1347 Fasli in favour of his wife Fatima Sogra, the mother of the plaintiffs. The said Fatima Sogra has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the same till she died on 24/07/1973. On the death of the Fatima Sogra in 1973, the property devolved upon the plaintiffs who are her children.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant occupied an extent of 2180 sq. yards out of Ac. 3-26 grants in the year 1964 and raised construction. Though the plaintiffs asked the 1st defendant not to proceed with the construction and demolish the same, their request was not complied with. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit land. The suit was originally filed against the 1st defendant alone.

( 4 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiffs. The patta in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and the settlement deed in favour of their mother are denied for lack of knowledge. According to the 1st defendant, the suit land originally belonging to late Dr. Jaffer Hussain. He transferred the same to one Sajid Hasan through registered sale deed dated 20-1-1950. Sajid Hasan, in turn, sold the same to the 1st defendant through sale deed dated 2-7-1963. She claimed to be the bona fide purchaser. She also claims peaceful and uninterrupted possession ever since the date of purchase. It was further pleaded that she got issued a public notice before purchasing the property and since there were no objections she purchased the same for a consideration of Rs. 6,000. 00. She also claimed that after purchase of the suit land, she started construction duly obtaining permission from the Municipality. She also raised loans from the Co-operative housing Society.

( 5 ) IN addition to denying the contents of the plaint, the 1st defendant has also taken a further plea that she transferred the suit schedule property in favour of her brother- in-law Lateeful Hasan Burney, through document dated 20-6-1973. According to her, the suit land was in S. No. 129/64 and not part of S. No. 129/55 (old ). Alternatively, it was also pleaded that even it is to be held that the suit land is in S. No. 129/55, she had perfected her title by adverse possession.

( 6 ) IN view of the averments in the written statement by the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs impleaded the said Lateeful Hasan burney as the 2nd defendant.

( 7 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement. He almost reiterated the contentions of the 1st defendant. He has taken an additional plea that even if for any reason the suit against the 1 st defendant is to be found within time, the suit is hopelessly barred against him. According to the 2nd defendant, because he was impleaded only in the year 1982, the limitation should start against him from that date only.

( 8 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:" 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land ? 2. Whether the defendant was in possession of the suit land under valid registered sale deed dated 20-6-1973 ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the charges prayed for. If so, to what amount ? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-join- der of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document