The appellant filed O.S.No.1121 of 1992 in the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property of a plot of 370 square yards in Road No.3, Banjara Hills. He stated that the suit schedule property is part of plot No.11, carved out by erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality; and its allottee Smt.Safia Begum sold it in favour of one Smt. Rangamma and others through sale deed, dated 12.04.1965, under Ex.A.3 and that Ragamma and another, in turn, divided that land into 12 plots and sub-plot No.11, admeasuring 1849.66 square metres, was sold to smt.Iqubal Begum Sayed, in the year 1969. She, in turn, is said to have sold 648 square yards to the appellant under Ex.A.1, dated 05.10.1978. Out of this, the appellant is said to have sold 278 square yards through a document, dated 15.05.1992. It was also mentioned that the respondents made an attempt to recover the possession of the suit schedule property and other extents from the vendors by filing L.G.C.Nos.26 of 1990 and 36 of 1991 and that the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the L.G.Act’), had dismissed the said cases. With these and other averments, he prayed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

2. On behalf of the respondents, a written statement was filed, stating that the suit schedule property is part of survey No.403, a large extent owned by the Government. It was also mentioned that the Jubilee Hills Municipality divided the land in the said survey number into 134 plots and the suit schedule property is part of plot No.10 and not plot No.11, as pleaded by the appellant. Various transactions pleaded by the appellant are said to be fictitious.

3. The trial Court partly decreed the suit, granting the relief of perpetual injunction through its judgment, dated 05.09.2005, and declined the relief of declaration of title. The appellant filed A.S.No.553 of 2005 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, feeling aggrieved by the denial of relief of declaration of title. The appeal was dismissed through judgment, dated 15.05.2007. Hence, this Second Appeal.

4. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court, did not doubt the transactions covered by Exs.A.1 to A.7 and have declined the relief of declaration of title, only on the ground that the absolute title of the predecessors-in-title of the appellant was not proved. He contends that the fact that the respondents failed to establish their legal entitlement in L.G.C.No.36 of 1991, was not taken note of. He further submits that both the Courts proceeded on a wrong perception of Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the other hand, submits that the relief of declaration of title can be granted, only through a decree in rem, and for that purpose, it becomes essential for a plaintiff to prove the title beyond any pale of doubt. He contends that though the appellant provided chain of transactions covered by sale deeds, he did not establish the title of the original allottee.

6. The suit was filed for the twin reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The fact that the appellant is in possession of the property is evident from the proceedings initiated by the respondents, in L.G.C.Nos.26 of 1990 and 36 of 1991, against his vendors.

7. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

(i) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii) Whether the suit property is property of government as contended by defendants?

(iv) Whether the suit is bad for want of Section 80 notice as contended by defendants?”

8. On behalf