COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per R. Kantha Rao, J)

1. This is an appeal from the decree and judgment dated 24.02.2004 passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.271 of 2001.

2. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. The respondent filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, profits past and future which has been decreed by the trial Court. Assailing the said decree and judgment, the defendants preferred the present appeal.

3. The brief facts necessary for considering the questions involved in the appeal, may be stated, as follows:

According to the respondent/plaintiff, he became entitled to the schedule mentioned property under a registered gift deed, dated 21.03.1957 executed by His Excellency, the Nizam VII Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan in his favour. At the request of the first appellant, the respondent permitted him to occupy the schedule mentioned property in an area of 2581.07 square yards covered by House No.4-1-1 situate in Boggulakunta. The request of the first appellant was acceded to by the respondent as the first appellant convinced him that it would take at least six months to make the proposed permanent premises suitable for the educational institution as it required extensive development. Thus, on the promise of the first appellant to vacate the premises within a period of six months, the respondent generously permitted him to occupy the schedule mentioned property and to run the educational institution therein. However, as seen from the averments of the plaint, the first appellant did not vacate the premises as promised, whereupon the representative of the respondent addressed a letter dated 09.03.1996 to the first appellant to deliver the possession of the premises but the first appellant was postponing the issue on one pretext or the other by seeking extension of time. As he did not vacate the premises by 01.05.1999 in spite of repeated demands from which date onwards the possession of the appellants was considered to be unauthorized and illegal and as such, according to the respondent the appellants are liable to pay damages @ Rs.20,000/- per month. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the respondent filed the suit which was decreed by the learned trial Court granting all the reliefs prayed for.

4. In the course of the written statement filed by the first appellant which was adopted by the second appellant, it was contended that the respondent has no title to the suit property, he is not entitled to recover the possession of the same by ejecting the appellants therefrom, more particularly, in view of the fact that the rights were created in favour of the third parties. It was also contended therein that since the respondent had no title to the property, he cannot claim any damages from the appellants and absolutely there was no basis for the respondent to claim damages. Apart from denying the material averments in the plaint, the first appellant contended that it is for the respondent to prove that the appellants came into possession of the property on 12.07.1992. The allegation that the first appellant has been postponing the issue of redelivering the property on some pretext or the other, was flatly denied. The alleged letter dated 09.03.1996 said to have been issued by the representative of the respondent to the first appellant seeking redelivery of possession of the property was also denied stating that the said doucment was fabricated with an evil design. The appellants contended that the respondent has no cause of action to file the suit against the appellants besides contending that the suit is barred by time.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the learned trial Court settled the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration sought for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property as sought for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages? If so, to what exten