Point of Law: without providing the identity and location of his property and locating it within the property developed by 1st respondent, appellant cannot seek the relief of injunction against the respondents either from proceeding with further construction or from alienating it.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. These Appeals arise out of the same between the same parties and so they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant in both these Appeals is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 961 of 2019 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. The said suit was filed on 25-10-2019 by the appellant against the respondents for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession by evicting the respondents, if necessary by demolishing the constructions made by respondents.

THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SUIT

4. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit is that the suit schedule property had been purchased by one S. Osman Ali Khan under a registered sale deed Doc. No. 1897 of 1963 dt. 14-11-1963. He alleged that out of the land 1563 sq. yds purchased under these documents, an extent of 1286 sq. yds was gifted by an oral Hiba by S. Osman Ali Khan in favour of Smt. Rukiya Begum, who was his step-sister.

5. It is contended by appellant that Smt. Rukiya Begum, then constructed a house in 1974 in the suit schedule property along with compound wall, that it was assessed to tax in 1974 and was giving House No. 6-3-1099/1/2/1.

6. The appellant contended that Smt. Rukiya Begum is his grand mother, that she expired on 01-07-2002 intestate leaving behind her son Mir Raza Ali Baquri, who had also expired on 10-09-2007, and he is the sole legal heir of his father's estate.

7. He alleged that Smt. Rukiya Begum, appellant's father and thereafter himself used to reside in the suit schedule property; that the appellant also has a house in Dabeerpura, Hyderabad; that they were residing in the said house by keeping the suit schedule property under lock and key; before appellant's father's death on 10-09-2007, he was unwell and during the period of illness, nobody looked after the suit schedule property; the southern boundary wall of the suit schedule property had collapsed; due to paucity of funds and due to illness of his father, the appellant could not raise the southern boundary wall again.

8. He alleged that in September, 2018, the 1st respondent, along with his workmen and associates, raised metal corrugated sheets in an extent of 7500 mts by blocking the entry into the suit schedule property; that North West and East side compound walls of the suit schedule property remained intact though in a dilapidated state; the appellant approached the 1st respondent and asked him to remove the same and on the demand of the appellant, the 1st respondent removed one sheet making it possible to enter into the suit schedule property from its southern side.

9. It is contended by the appellant that the 1st respondent again blocked ingress and egress to the suit schedule property by blocking it with huge barricades; that the appellant then came to know from neighbours that 1st respondent was going to start a huge construction in an extent of 7049.78 sq. mts; the said construction was commenced on 16-03-2009 by including the suit schedule properties by encroaching into it after obtaining permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on 06-10-2018. It is contended by the appellant that 1st respondent obtained construction from the GHMC by suppressing the ownership and misrepresenting the facts and the respondents have no title to the suit schedule property and have no right to make any constructions therein.

10. He also stated that he filed O.S. No. 701 of 2019 before the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against 1st respondent and GHMC to declare that the construction permission granted by the GHMC is illegal and for an injunction restraining the 1st respondent from making constructions in the suit schedule property; and though initially an ex parte injunction was granted, the same was vacated and the application f