These two second appeals arise out of common judgment and separate decrees rendered in A.S.Nos.10 and 11 of 1990 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, dated 15-10-2005, through which, the common judgment, rendered by the Court of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.Nos.100 and 2481 of 1984, and the corresponding decrees dated 19-12-1989; were reversed.

.

2. The defendants in O.S.No.100 of 1984 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2481 of 1984 and the sale plaintiff in O.S.No.100 of 1984 is the defendant in O.S.No.2481 of 1984. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in O.S.No.100 of 1984.

3. One Smt. Khaja Bee, wife of Mohd. Abdullah, purchased an extent of 665 sq. yards from one Smt. Danam Rangamma, through a sale deed dated 16-2-1952. Out of this, she is said to have alienated two small pieces, admeasuring 100 sq. yards and 122 sq. yards, to different persons, and retained 443 sq. yards. A house was constructed in the year 1964, over this land. Khaja Bee and her husband Abdullah had two sons by name, Rahamatullah and Shaik Ahmed and three daughters by name. Chand Bee, Khasim Bee (Defendants 1 and 2) and another, by name, Razia Begum. The plaintiff is the wife of Rahamatullah. The other son i.e., Shaik Ahmed died issueless, in 1970. One of the daughters, by name Razia Begum died issueless, in the year 1976.

4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.100 of 1984 for the relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property, comprising of 6 rooms over 200 sq.yards of land in House No. 8-3-800/3/1, at Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad against the defendants. It was pleaded that after the death of Khaja Bee, her husband, Abdullah, inherited the property, and he in turn executed a gift deed dated 25-1-1973 in favour of his two sons i.e., Rahamatullah and Shaik Ahmed. According to the plaintiff Shaik Ahmed died issueless, in the year 1973, and Rahamatulla, her husband, became the exclusive donee, and that after the death of her husband, on 20-3-1982, the plaintiff inherited the said property. It was pleaded that ever since the property was inherited by the plaintiff, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same, duly paying the property tax, etc., and her complaint was that the defendants were trying to interfere with her property by claiming independent rights in it.

5. The defendants filed a written statement. They admitted the relationship of the parties. It was, however, pleaded that after the death of their mother, Khaja Bee, the property was inherited by her sons and daughters, and their father Abdullah, excluded himself from inheritance. They made a reference to O.S.No.226 of 1966, filed by Khaja Bee, and stated that when she died during the pendency of the suit, her children alone came on record, and that Abdullah kept himself outside the proceedings. It is also the case of the defendants that their father could never have become absolute owner of the suit schedule property, since it was a matruka, left by their mother.

Defendants raised an objection as to the genuinity and legality of the gift deed dated 25-1-1973 (Ex.A-3), and urged that, being an unregistered deed, it is unenforceable in law.

6. In addition to denying the contents of the plaint, the defendants pleaded that on 15-1-1977 the property of 443 sq. yards was divided among Rahamatulla, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, and that in the said partition, dated 2-1-1977, an extent of 193.67 sq.yards fell to their share, and the remaining 249.33 sq.yards was allotted to the share of Rahamatulla. The latter, in turn, is said to have executed a sale deed dated 15-1-1977 in favour of the 2nd defendant. With these pleas, they contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed. It was urged that the entire property left by Khaja Bee was in their possession and enjoyment, and prayed for dismissal of the suit. They pleaded that, taki