Heard the both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st defendant as well as the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

2. The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S. 151 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent/sole plaintiff on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the appellant herein and respondents 2 to 73 herein. Respondents 2 to 73 are shown in the present appeal as not necessary parties.

3. The appellant herein is referred to as "the 1st defendant" and the 1st respondent herein is referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience.

4. The suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land of an extent of Ac.3.34 guntas equivalent to 18634 sq.yards bearing Sy.No.403 (new) corresponding to old Sy.No.129, being plot No.19 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, presently part of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Area, T.S.No.1/1/2, Ward No.8, Block No.2, situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, bounded by North-Road No.10, East-40 ft.Road, South-Valley and West-Neighbours' property, and consequently, directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant filed written statement.

5. The plaintiff filed I.A.1303/2006 in O.S.151/2006 under Or.39 Rules-1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the 1st defendant from changing the nature of the petition schedule property by making any construction or otherwise. The 1st defendant filed an application in I.A.1774/2006 under Or.7 Rule-11 CPC to reject the plaint, contending that the suit is not maintainable. Both the said applications i.e. I.A.1303/2006 and I.A.1774/2006 were heard together and by order dated 29.08.2006, the Court below dismissed the I.A.1774/2006 filed by the 1st defendant seeking to reject the plaint and allowed the I.A.1303/2006, granting temporary injunction restraining the 1st defendant from altering the nature of the suit schedule property pending the suit, and also directed the parties to get ready for the trial in the suit expeditiously.

6. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed I.A.3446/2007 under Or.39 Rule-4 read with Sec.151 CPC for modification of the temporary injunction order, granted by the Court below on 29.08.2006 in I.A.1303/2006 subject to the condition of giving an unconditional undertaking to the Court below by the 1st defendant to the effect that in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant shall demolish and remove any construction that may be carried out on the plaint schedule property and restore the plaint schedule property to its present condition at the cost of the 1st defendant and without claiming any compensation from the plaintiff. It is also stated that the 1st defendant was willing to give the said undertaking in any other form that is acceptable to the Court below. The said I.A.3446/2007 has been dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 04.04.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was originally owned by one Sri Rai Ekanath Prasad and he died leaving behind his wife Smt.Lakshmi Bai as the sole surviving heir, who succeeded to the said property, and the said Smt.Lakshmi Bai sold the said property under the registered sale deed dated 7th Khurdat 1356 Fasli in favour of one Sri Syed Azam Ali and the name of the said Sri Syed Azam Ali was mutated in the revenue records and the said Sri Syed Azam Ali, by declaration dated 01-03-1950 sold the said property in favour of Sri Abdul Razak and the said Sri Abdul Razak by a Hiba, gifted the said property in favour of his daughter Smt.Niazi Begum and the said Niazi Begum accepted the gift (Hiba) and since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and her possession was also recognized, showing her as enjoyer of the said pro