1. The appeals CCCA.No.40 of 2002 and Tr.CCCA.No.168 of 2003 are filed challenging the common judgment dated 21.01.2002 in OS.No.1402 of 1992 and OS.No.432 of 1993 respectively passed by the VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. As this is a first appeal, the parties are referred to as the plaintiff and defendant only as in the suit OS.No.1402/1992 as the evidence was recorded in this suit.

3. OS.No.1402 of 1992 is filed seeking declaration of title and delivery of possession of major portion of the composite house bearing Door No.5-3-128, Hindi Nagar, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, which is described within the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule and also for mesne profits past and future in respect of the mulgi bearing No.5-3-128/2 and six rooms allegedly in occupation of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.2 filed OS.No.432/1993 seeking a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering with her possession of the mulgi bearing No.5-3-128/2, situated in Hindi Nagar, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. The schedule property in OS.No.432 of 1993 is a part of the schedule of property in OS.No.1402 of 1992. The plaintiff in OS.No.1402 of 1992 is the defendant No.5 in OS.No.432 of 1993. The plaintiff in OS.No.432 of 1993 is the defendant No.2 in OS.No.1402 of 1992. The three sons of the plaintiff in OS.No.1402 of 1992 are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in OS.No.432 of 1993.

4. The case of the plaintiff-Kalawathi Bai in OS.No.1402 of 1992 is that the deceased defendant No.3 Ranvir Singh was the original owner and possessor of the composite house bearing Municipal No.5-3-128, Hindi Nagar, Goshamahal, Hyderabad and the same is shown as A, B, C, D, E, F in the plan enclosed to the plaint. The plaintiff purchased the Northern portion which is shown as BCDE in the plan measuring 43 sq., yards for valuable consideration from defendant No.3 under registered sale deed dated 26.05.1988 and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the portion of the property. Thereafter, defendant No.3 entered in to an agreement dated 05.03.1986 to sell the remaining portions to the plaintiff but as the same could not be completed; he executed a supplemental agreement dated 21.08.1988 after taking return of the earlier agreement dated 05.03.1986. He also executed another supplemental agreement dated 30.08.1991 for the property whereby time was further extended. When defendant No.3 failed to execute a regular sale deed, the plaintiff-Kalavathi Bai got issued legal notice dated 20.07.1991 to him and then filed OS.No.179 of 1992 seeking specific performance of the contract of sale on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In that suit, defendant No.3-Ranveer Singh filed a written statement admitting the suit claim and offered to execute regular sale deed. Accordingly, he executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 27.06.1992 after receiving the balance sale consideration. The above suit was decreed on 17.07.1992. On 29.06.1992 the plaintiff and defendant issued separate notices to the tenants, Radha Krishna, Shankerjee who are in occupation, respectively of the mulgies bearing Nos.5-3-128/4 and six rooms, of the suit property, calling upon them to attorn to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 received the notice and gave a reply dated 11.07.1992 with all false allegations. After receiving notice, the said Shankerjee attorned the tenancy to the plaintiff and executed a lease deed dated 19.09.1992 in favour of the plaintiff. The said Radha Krishna received the notice, but gave a reply seeking clarification as defendant No.1 made a claim to be the owner of the property. While so, defendant No.2 who is the wife of defendant No.1 filed OS.No.2050/1992 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the plaintiff and her four sons seeking permanent injunction in respect of the mulgi bearing No.5-3-128/2, renumbered as OS.No.432 of 1993 subsequent to the transfer to the Court