Important Point—A shall make only such amendments which are necessary for determination of real controversy between parties to suit.

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 by names G.N. Naidu and B. Krishna Murthy Naidu, aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2006, passed by the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No. 30 of 2002, in favour of the sole plaintiff by name Mohd. Farooq Ali Khan.

2-i. The suit O.S.30 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property by evicting the defendants 1 and 2 and for recovery of damages of Rs.3,68,315/- (Rupees three lakh sixty eight thousand three hundred and fifteen only) from 25.09.1998 to 30.06.2001 and further Rs.46,500/- (Rupees forty six thousand and five hundred only) from 01.07.2001 to 25.09.2001 totaling of Rs.3,84,815/- (Rupees three lakh eighty four thousand eight hundred and fifteen only) and also for recovery of future damages at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) p.m. from the date of suit till delivery of possession of suit schedule property with interest at 18% p.a. and for costs and such other just reliefs. The suit was decreed granting the main relief for possession giving time of two months to the defendants to vacate, else the plaintiff to recover through process of Court and by granting damages at Rs.5,000/- p.m. from 25.09.1998 to the date of suit 25.09.2001 for total of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and future damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff with interest at such rate and with suit costs of Rs.1,57,750/-.

2.ii. The plaint schedule property consists of northern cellar portion bearing Municipal Nos. 7-1-621-B, 7-1-621-B/1 and 7-1-621-B/A/1 with plinth area of 3200 (sic.3300) sq.feet of Ameer Chambers, along with undivided half share in the land admeasuring 118.66 sq. yards out of 1/3rd area of 356 sq. yards situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, bounded by North: Ameer Estate Complex, South: Southern cellar portion belonging to Mahd. Musthafa Ali- (plaintiffs younger brother), East: Satya Sai Complex and West: 20 feet passage and the complex owned by plaintiff.

2.iii. The factual Matrix of the lis in nutshell is that:

iii-a. As per the plaint, the land in Sy. No. 26 admeasuring 6,600 sq. yards originally belongs to late Smt. Rahamat Khatoon, (mother of plaintiff and his brother) who in her lifetime orally gifted said extent by way of Hiba (gift), dt.01.08.1971 in favour of plaintiff and his brother equally to hold each half share and delivered possession to them and consequently the plaintiff became absolute owner of the northern half comprising 3300 sq. yards out of the total 6600 sq. yards in Sy. No. 26 of Ameerpet (plaint schedule property) corresponding to TS No. 8, ward No. 5, Block No. A. It is also the case of plaintiff that their mother later executed memorandum, dt.19.01.1972, to the oral gift, dt.01.08.1971. The plaintiff’s northern half 3300 sq. yards is abutting to Mumbai National Highway and plaintiff constructed on the northern corner of the extent, covering an area of 356 sq. yards consisting of cellar, ground and first floor. However, his brother-Musthafa, to whom their mother though gave southern half 3300 sq. yards out of the total 6600 sq. yards, by misrepresenting, got mutated the cellar portion of the plaintiff in his name while the plaintiff and his family were residing in United States and were visiting once in six months or the like to look after the properties. On coming to know of it by plaintiff, when asked said Mustafa, he submitted an affidavit acknowledging ownership of the plaintiff and pursuant to which, the municipal authorities mutated said northern cellar portion in the name of plaintiff and plaintiff also paid property tax. However, taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence and without any information to the plaintiff, his brother Musthafa in collusion with and by extracting amounts from 1st defendant set