B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AT issue in these two Letters Patent Appeals is:"when a specific relief for possession is sought for by a civil action in common law remedy, can a discretion be exercised by the Court to grant a decree for compensation/damages by invoking the doctrine of equity, inspite of the factual finding that the plaintiff has got right to recover possession. "

( 2 ) THE facts briefly stated, thus, are: plaintiffs 1 and 2 had instituted O. S. No. 37/71 and O. S. No. 248/71 for recovery of possession of suit schedule properties. In O. S. No. 37/71, the property comprised is structures covering 72 sq. yards and odd. In O. S. No. 248/71, it is structures covering 49 sq. yards and odd. The property in O. S. No. 37/71 was purchased by D-2 and D-3 by a registered sale-deed dated 27-11-1969, Ex. A-115 is the registration extract. The property in O. S. No. 248/71 was purchased by D-7 and another and the latter s LRs are D-2 to D-6. D-1 was a lessee of the suit properties. The property in O. S. No. 248/71 was sold on 19-11-1969. Ex. A- 116 is the registration extract, Plaintiff No. 1. is sister s son of Plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No. 2 was gifted the suit property by her father under Ex. A-1 dated 21-4-1926. She was married to P. W. 2 after 5 years of the said gift, but they had no issues and plaintiff No. l (P. W. 3) was brought up by 2nd plaintiff and her husband (P. Ws. 1 and 2 ). The suit properties were in turn gifted by the 2nd plaintiff to the 1st plaintiff under Ex. A-2 dated 15-7-1948. Under the said deed, Ex. A-2, plaintiff No. 2 reserved her right to enjoy the property till her death. D-l is closely related to the plaintiffs. He had premises adjoining the suit properties. While the assessment number of the suit properties was 7928, D-l had his property adjoining the suit properties bearing assessment No. 7927. The suit properties were leased out to D-l with effect from 1-1-1959 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/ -. He paid the rents till 30-11-1969. He in turn inducted other tenants. On 2-9-1969, he proposed the sale of his building and suggested the 2nd plaintiff to sell the suit properties also. But, admittedly, no purchaser was brought to plaintiffs or any agreement was entered in to. The 1st defendant had been running a partnership firm along with other partners. D-l and his other partners had executed the originals of Exs. A-115 and A-116. P. W. I is the 2nd plaintiff, P. W. 2 is her husband and P. W. 3 is the 1st plaintiff. The defence set up by the defendants was that the plaintiffs are not the owners and that they did not exercise their ownership rights over the suit properties and that the gifts made either to 2nd plaintiff by her father or by 2nd plaintiff to the 1st plaintiff were invalid. It was also pleaded that the 1st defendant exercised his ownership rights and that he was the ostensible owner and in any event, he had acquired right by prescription and as such sales effected under originals of Exs. A-115 and A-116 were valid and binding. They also set up the plea that they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and that they cannot be subjected to either eviction or liable to pay damages. Triable issues were framed and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by either parties, the trial Court held that the 2nd plaintiff became the owner of the suit property by virtue of Ex. A-1 and then the 1st plaintiff by virtue of gift under Ex. A -2 and that the said gifts were true, valid and acted upon and that, the first defendant and his co-vendors had no title to the suit properties and that they did not acquire any prescriptive rights and they were not treated as ostensible owners even. In the result, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit schedule properties after ejecting the defendants therefrom. Having held so, the trial Court has granted a decree in O. S. No. 37/71 to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 18,650/- towards the site

Click Here to Read the rest of this document