JUDGMENT ;- These second appeals are filed by the same appellant and against, almost the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in Second Appeal No.646 of 1994.

2. The genesis of the dispute is as under:

3. The sole appellant died and her legal representatives are brought on record. Respondents 1 and 2 are two Temples, through Idol and Deity; Respondent No.3 is a Priest; Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are devotees of the said Temples; Respondent No.8 is the A.P. Housing Board, and Respondent No.9 is the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.

4. The appellant is an allottee of City Improvement Board Quarters at Agahpura, where the Temples are also located. The 8th respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, in respect of the quarters, as well as the adjoining land. The 9th respondent accorded permission for undertaking construction in the open place also.

5. The Respondents 1 to 7 filed O.S. No.165 of 1983 in the Court of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the appellant, insofar as it relates to a lane, leading to the Temple. They pleaded that, adjoining the Naala, there existed a lane, connecting the Temple with the road, and it was being used as an access, particularly during festival seasons. They alleged that cement road was laid by the Corporation, and when the appellant attempted to dig drenches in it, they prevented. With these and certain other related facts, they prayed for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed, dated 27-11-1980, insofar as it related to the lane.

6. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 9th respondent herein, accorded permission to the appellant, on 7-1-1981, enabling her to make construction. Respondents 1 to 3 filed O.S. No.3975 of 1981, for cancellation of the construction permission.

7. The 9th respondent issued notice dated 10-3-1981, directing the appellant to show cause as to why the permission shall not be cancelled. Assailing the same, the appellant filed O.S. No.741 of 1982 in the same Court.

8. The appellant pleaded, in all the three suits, that there did not exist any public lane, abutting her site, and the suits filed by the respondents are without any basis. She contended that they do not have locus standi, and that the suits are not maintainable for more reasons than one. The trial Court clubbed all the three suits and recorded common evidence. Through a common judgment dated 28-7-1989, the trial Court decreed O.S. Nos.3975 of 1981 and 165 of 1983 and dismissed O.S. No.741 of 1982. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S. Nos.262, 263 and 261 of 1989, respectively, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeals were dismissed on 29-7-1994, through a common judgment. Hence, these second appeals.

9. Sri D. V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the suit for cancellation of a sale deed was not maintainable, since it was filed by persons, who are not parties to the document. He contends that as regards the relief of cancellation of construction permission, the trial Court dismissed the suit against the Municipal Corporation, but had erroneously decreed it against the appellant. He further submits that unless the legal or easementary right of the Respondents 1 to 7 vis-a-vis the suit schedule property was declared in a properly constituted suit, it was not open to them, to claim the reliefs in the present set of proceedings. Learned Advocate further points out that the respondents failed to establish that there existed any road, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the trial Court in decreeing the suits filed by the Respondents 1 to 7. He contends that the cancellation of the permission, accorded to the appellant, was also without basis.

10. Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Advoca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document