This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 31.07.2006 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in A.S.No.528 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned III Additional Chief Judge reversed the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2005 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller-cum-XV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.1613 of 2000.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer the parties herein as ‘the plaintiffs and the defendant.’

One Mr. Shiv Raj, the deceased-first plaintiff filed O.S.No.1613 of 2000 against the defendant seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining him and his men from interfering with the suit property which is a vacant site of an extent of 1500 sq. yards or 1254 sq. mtrs, in municipal Ward No.18, Sultan Bagh, Jangummet, Faluknama,Hyderabad. Pending the suit, he died and the remaining plaintiffs have been brought on record as his legal representatives. According to the plaintiffs, they became entitled to the schedule mentioned site by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 14.06.1966 marked as Ex.A.1 executed by one Dasarath Kumar in favour of the deceased first plaintiff. The vendor of the plaintiffs’ Dasarath Kumar purchased the site under Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 11.01.1960 from Md. Ulfat Ali Khan. The version of the plaintiffs is that the defendant without any manner of right, title or interest in the schedule mentioned site is trying to interfere with their possession and therefore, he filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant.

The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit schedule mentioned site is in T.S.No.26 which is co-related to old Survey No.5/P and the said site belongs to the defendant’s father Makkaji, the plaintiffs are his vendors and do not have any title or interest in the schedule mentioned site. The case of the defendant is that his father Makkaji is the owner and possessor of entire land covered by Survey No.5 and new Survey Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of Sultan Bagh village having purchased under two registered sale deeds from original owner Smt. Kaneez Imtul Zabar Fathima, who is the original pattedar. The defendant also contended that the description of the property mentioned by the plaintiffs in the schedule attached to the plaint is not correct, they do not have any right or interest in the said property and hence they are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

The learned trial Court framed an issue whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. The plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant himself was examined as DW1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.13 on his behalf. The learned trial Court on a careful analysis of evidence adduced on either side, rejected the contention urged by the defendant that the plaintiffs are unable to establish the identity of the schedule mentioned site, compared the boundaries recited in the documents relied upon by both the parties such as Exs.A1, A2, Exs.B.1 and B.2 held that for not mentioning the survey number or town survey number, the well established claim made by the plaintiffs cannot be rejected, and accordingly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs granting the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant following the well settled principle that the boundaries will prevail over the extent or survey numbers.

The learned first appellate Court being led away by certain misconceived notions and ignoring the well settled principles relating to proof of certain facts in civil cases, unjustly reversed the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. It is true that insofar as the finding relating to facts, the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court is final, but such finality will be attached to the conclusions reached by the first appellate Co