The appellant filed O.S. No.3118 of 1982, in the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the respondents, initially for the relief of perpetual injunction. Thereafter, the prayer was amended, incorporating the relief, of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that the suit plot, admeasuring 300 Sq.yards, in Sy.No.168 of Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, was purchased by her under a sale deed dated 25.4.1963, from one Sri Gayasuddin Khan, and ever since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was alleged that the 1st respondent, who is working as a Constable in the Police Department, tried to occupy the land high-handedly, and attempted to put a temporary hut on it. She alleged that the local police did not take any action on the complaint submitted by her. On finding that the plot was occupied by the 1st respondent, she got amended the suit, for the relief of recovery of possession.

2. Respondents 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter respectively, of the 1 st respondent. A common written statement was filed by them. It was pleaded that the 2nd respondent purchased the suit plot, through sale deed dated 6.5.1982, from the original owner, and they did not encroach into any property of the appellant.

3. Through its judgment, dated 26.9.1989, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

Thereupon the appellant filed A.S. No.1 of 1990, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 24.7.1995. Hence, this second appeal.

4. Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant proved her title, by filing the sale deed dated 25.4.1963, marked as Ex.A2, and by examining the concerned witnesses. He contends that even assuming that the sale deed, under which the 2nd respondent purchased the property is valid, it cannot confer any title, since it came to be executed almost two decades after the purchase of the property, by the appellant. He submits that the Courts below did not apply the settled principles of law, and ought to have granted the relief, as prayed for.

5. Smt. Dyumani, learned Counsel appearing for Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the purchases made by the appellant, on the one hand, and respondent No.2, on the other hand, are from different co-sharers, and that no absolute title can be said to have accrued to either of them. She contends that the only remedy that the appellant ought to have pursued was, to seek partition of the property and for possession of the undivided share, to the extent covered by Ex.A2, through her vendor. She places reliance upon certain decided cases.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration.

(1) Whether the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff binds the vendors of the suit property in favour of the defendant No.2?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction for the removal of the hut of the defendants?

Additional Issues:

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for?

7. The GP A of the appellant was examined as PW I and another witness was examined as PW.2. She filed Exs. Al to A3. The 1st respondent was examined as DW 1 and one of the vendors of 2nd respondent was examined as DW2. On their behalf, Exs.B 1 to B 14 were filed. Another document was marked as Ex.xl. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

8. The land in Sy.No.168, which is said to be about Acs.100-00 was owned by one Waris Khan. One of his sons, by name Gayasuddin Khan, executed EX.A2 in favour of the appellant, in