JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant herein challenging judgment and decree dt.18.10.2019 in OS.No.1176 of 2008 of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

The suit

2. The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in the said suit had filed the said suit through a GPA Holder against the appellant and respondents 2 & 3 to declare that he is the sole, absolute and lawful owner of the suit schedule property, for recovery of possession thereof and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and respondents 2 & 3 from undertaking any constructions in the suit schedule property apart from costs.

3. The suit schedule property is plot No.49, forming part of Survey No.11/11, 11/12, 11/13 and part of Survey No.11 situated at Khanamet village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The said suit was filed on 08.12.2008.

The plea of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the Suit

5. The basis of the claim of the 1st respondent in the suit was a registered sale deed document No.8086/1982 dt.10.11.1982 executed in his favour by Sri Swamy Ayyappa Co-Operative Housing Society Limited.

6. According to the 1st respondent, some unknown persons trespassed into the suit schedule property on 02.11.2008, demolished a hut and threw out the articles of the watchman engaged by him; that the 2nd respondent/defendant No.1 threatened him stating that he had purchased the property, but the 2nd respondent did not produce any document; that the 2nd respondent forged the signatures of the 1st respondent, fabricated certain documents; that the 3rd respondent/defendant No.2 filed OS.No.223 of 2008 before Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, for perpetual injunction against the 2nd respondent describing the 2nd respondent as the owner and later the appellant got impleaded therein; that the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte; the suit against the 3rd respondent was dismissed for non-payment of process; that the appellant filed written statement denying the plaint averments in O.S.No.223 of 2008 and claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property and that he purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed document No.202/2009 dt.01.01.2009; that the appellant also filed O.S.No.1848 of 2009 before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District; that the said suit was later compromised; that the appellant made constructions in the suit schedule property and let out the building constructed on lease to Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee on 18.05.2010.

7. It is the contention of the 1st respondent/plaintiff that he is a resident of United States of America; that after the purchase of the property, prior to its occupation by the defendants, he had applied for regularization to the Urban Land Ceiling Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh which had floated a Scheme for its regularization; that the 1st respondent filed criminal complaint against the 2nd respondent before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally; that the appellant and the respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property; and so the suit be decreed.

The plea of the appellant/3rd defendant

8. The appellant/3rd defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint.

9. He contended that the GPA Holder of the 1st respondent/plaintiff cannot represent the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property because the GPA dt.07.10.2008 executed by the 1st respondent mentioned only Survey No.11 and not the sub-divisions thereof.

10. It is contended that the 1st respondent/plaintiff had sold the suit schedule property to Smt K.Sarala on 02.07.2001; the said Smt K.Sarala executed a regd. agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with Possession on 04.12.2008 in favour of one Vaddi Shashi Verma; that there was a rectification of the said document by a regd. rectification deed dt.01.01.2009 mentioning that Survey No.s 11/11, 11/12, 11/13 in which the suit sc