IMPORTANT POINT
If person, who claiming right or interest in property, established title or right, Court may exercise discretion to grant relief of declaration of title judiciously.

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.—The defendants 1 to 4 in Original Suit No.4 of 1989, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge (Now Senior Civil Judge), Nirmal, Adilabad District (For short, ‘the trial Court’), preferred this Appeal against the impugned decree and judgment dated 30.7.1993; wherein, the Suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. During pendency of this Appeal, 1st appellant herein died and her legal representatives i.e., 5th appellant herein was brought on record and 2nd appellant herein died and his legal representatives i.e., appellants 6 to 8 were brought on record as per the orders of this Court in A.S.M.P. Nos.1565 and 1562 of 2013, dated 28.2.2014.

3. The appellants 1 to 4 herein were the defendants and the respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court, in O.S. No.4 of 1989. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.4 of 1989 will be adopted throughout this judgment.

4. The plaintiff filed the Suit for declaration of title and recovery at possession of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.14.00 guntas of dry land out of Ac. 27.39 guntas, in S.No.518 and Ac. 0.39 guntas of wetland in S.No.407C situated at Basar village, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint; alleging that she purchased the schedule property from one Sayamma, wife of Dharmanna, in the year 1980, who initially sold to the plaintiff Ac.10.00 guntas in S.No.518 and Ac.0.39 guntas in S.No.407C for total consideration of Rs.43,500 under a registered sale deed dated 10.9.1980, marked as Ex.A1; subsequently, she sold another piece of Ac.4.00 guntas of dry land in S.No.518 to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.15,000 under a registered sale deed dated 16.9.1980, marked as Ex.A2, delivered vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deeds itself. After purchase of the schedule property, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records and effected transfer of patta in her favour. Originally, the schedule property belongs to the husband of Sayamma, who died prior to 1956, and after his death Sayamma became absolute owner of the schedule property and she was in possession and enjoyment till she sold the property to the plaintiff. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd defendant without any manner of right forcibly occupied the schedule property in the month of June, 1998 with the aid of defendants 1, 2 and 4.

5. Plaintiff herein is the cousin of Sayamma, PW2, 3rd defendant is the adopted son of Sayamma, PW2, 4th defendant is the wife of 3rd defendant and daughter of 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant.

6. When the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, she earlier filed a suit in O.S. No.76 of 1982 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Bhainsa for injunction simplicitor in respect of Ac.14.00 quntas of land in S.No.518, certified copy of which is marked as Ex.B16, which ended in dismissal and carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No.39 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nirmal, certified copy of which is marked as Ex.A8, was also dismissed holding that the plaintiff could not prove her possession as on the date of filing suit, while setting-aside the other findings of the trial Court, recorded a finding that the 3rd defendant is the adopted son of Sayamma and the sale deeds are genuine and supported by consideration. The plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants on 15.6.1988.

7. The plaintiff having purchased the schedule property under valid sale deeds, Exs.A1 and A2, became absolute owner of the property and the defendants have no right, whatsoever, to continue in possession of the property claiming right over it. Hence, the suit for declaratory relief