V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 98/1991 on the file of Additional Chief judge (Temp), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 1-3-1996 reversing the judgment, Decree and findings of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, in O. S. No. 603/1981, dated 18-3-1991 and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, are challenged in this second Appeal by the plaintiffs. The parties will be referred to as arraigned before the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule land. Their case is that they purchased the suit land bearing R. S. No. 120/4 corresponding to old S. No. 403/5 of Shaikpet from its rightful owner through a registered sale deed dated 20-3-1967 and they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same eversince that day. The defendant is a Co-operative Housing Building Society and it had purchased some land in S. Nos. l21/a and 129/92/3 situated near yousufguda Police Lines, Hyderabad, sometime prior to the suit and under the guise of the said purchase, the Society occupied the suit land sometime prior to the suit. The defendant-Society has no manner of rights to the suit land which is entirely different and distinct from the land purchased by it and it was falsely claiming the suit land as the one purchased by it and it has illegally occupied the same while disputing the plaintiffs title. On the other hand the case of the defendant-Society is that the land claimed by the plaintiffs viz. , the suit land, is in S. Nos. 121/a and 129/92/3 of Shaikpet village; that the above land was never in possession of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title within 12 years to the date of the suit and hence they are not entitled either to the declaration or to the possession. The Society purchased an extent of Ac. 12-02 guntas in S. No. 129/92/3 and 10 acres in s. No. l21/a of Shaikpet village in the year 1976 for the purpose of providing houses to its members and it is in possession of these lands only and it never threatened the plaintiffs with dispossession of their land which is stated to be part of old S. No. 403/5 corresponding to new S. No. 120/4 of Shaikpet village. The suit is under-valued as the market value per square yard was around Rs. 100/ -.

( 3 ) THE following issues and additional issue have been settled on the above pleadings: (1) Whether plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the property? (2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and recovery of possession? (3) Whether the defendant is in illegal possession? (4) Whether the Court fee paid is correct? (5) To what relief?additional issue: "whether the suit is barred by limitation".

( 4 ) DURING the trial, plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as P. W. 1 and exs. A-1 to A-5 are marked. In rebuttal, the Secretary of the defendant-Society mr. T. R. Krishna, examined himself as D. W. I and one S. Atchiah as D. W. 2. Exs. B-1 to B-48 are marked for the defendant. The Inspector of Survey, settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad was appointed as Commissioner for the purpose of localisation of the suit land on the application of the plaintiffs and he has been examined as P. W. 2 and his report along with plan and connected records are marked as Exs. C-1 to C-6. The learned Additional judge scrutinized the above oral and documentary evidence and held that p. W. 2 who was appointed as Commissioner was working as Inspector in survey, Settlement and Land Records Office at Hyderabad and he was well- versed with the survey work and since the defendant did not file any objections to the report Ex. C-1, the same is fit to be accepted. Moreover, he is examined as P. W. 2 and the defendant-Society had cross-examined on all the aspects. Thus, the learned Additional Judge held that the suit land is in s. No. 120/4 corresponding to old S. No. 403/5 of Shaikpet village and three boundaries thereof are tallying with the boundaries given in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document