L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.347 of 2004 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the judgment and decree dated 30-08-2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of, a) declaration that the plaintiffs alone are the owners of the suit schedule property of 830 sq.yards in T.S.No.1; b) recovery of possession thereof from the defendant No.1; c) direction to the respondent No.8 herein (defendant No.4) to correct the entries in town survey land record, in such a way that the names of Nawab Nazir Yar Jung and those of the plaintiffs are shown in the possession column in respect of land in TSLR No.1 and Sy.No.129/70 of Shaikpet Village; and d) mandatory injunction requiring the defendant No.1 to remove unauthorized and illegal structures put up by him on the said land. Mesne profits were also claimed.

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that late Justice Nazir Yar Jung, Judge of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court, their ancestor, was granted patta in respect of Ac.8.32 guntas of land in Sy.No.120/70 of Shaikpet Village, in the year 1920, and that on his death on 06-07-1966, they have succeeded to the property. According to them, the land in Sy.No.129/70 was assigned in T.S.Nos.1, 2 & 3 in block ‘R’ of Ward No.11 and T.S.Nos.26, 34 to 42 in Block ‘P’ of the same Ward in the town survey. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs obtained lay out for the land from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 30-12-1964, and that plot No.1 thereof, which corresponds to T.S.No.1, was shown as a water body in the lay-out since water stagnated thereon, and unfit for construction.

4. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is said to have issued a notice to them, proposing to construct underground drainage line, up to the length of 100 feet, across the land in T.S.No.1, promising to pay the compensation.

5. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that an extent of 1350 sq.yards comprised in Plot No.2, corresponding to T.S.No.2, was sold to one Ilyas Ahmed Menai and the ownership of the neighbouring plot No.1, admeasuring 816 sq.yards remaining with them. The 1st defendant is said to have approached them, with a request to permit him to use the land in T.S.No.1 for the purpose of parking the vehicles, and acceding to the request, permission was accorded through letter dated 12-02-2000. It was alleged that after occupying the land in T.S.No.1, i.e. the suit schedule property, the 1st defendant constructed a house thereon without their knowledge and permission. It has also been stated that in the town survey land record, the suit schedule property was wrongly shown as Government land, and that the same needs to be corrected.

6. The actual contest of the suit was by the 1st defendant. He stated that from out of the land of Ac.8.32 guntas, the plaintiffs sold 1350 sq.yards to Ilyas Ahmed Menai and that he purchased two bits of 195 sq.yards of each from Ilyas Ahmed Menai. It was also stated that the neighbouring plot of 475 sq.yards in House No.8-2-618/20/C was purchased by him, from one Mr. Mohd Rafiq, and that the plaintiffs do not have any claim whatever, over the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he constructed a house over the land of 865 sq.yards purchased from Ilyas Ahmed Menai (390 sq.yards) and Mr.Mohd. Rafiq (475 sq.yards), after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation. He has also raised the plea of adverse possession and made a reference to O.S.No.2453 of 1991, filed by him, against Mohd Rafiq. According to him, Mohd. Rafiq was in possession of part of 475 sq.yards, even by 1991.

7. On behalf of the defendants 2 to 4, a written-statement was filed by defendant No.3. According to them, the plaintiffs did not issue notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., before filing the suit and accordingly, it is not maintainable. It was stated that the l