JUDGMENT :

(M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.)

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the present appeal, are as follows:

a) The plaintiffs filed the main suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of 1980 square yards in Sy. No. 199 & 200, situated in Husnabad Village and Mandal, Karimnagar, contending that originally, one M. Laxmamma is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.199 and Ac.0.9 guntas in Sy.No.200, situated at Husnabad (V) from whom Padala Chandraiah, Padala Rajamouli, Padala Prabhakar and Padala Annapurna, who are the partners of a firm, by name Annapurna Agro Service Centre, Husnabad (in short ‘AASC’), have purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.537/1975 dated 06.02.1975 in the name of the said firm, which was dealing with the processing of all variety of seeds. The said firm was closed down in 1986. Before the closure of the said firm, the partners sold an extent of 1320 square yards in Sy.No.199 and 660 square yards in Sy.No.200 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- under a sale deed bearing document No.1026/1983 dated 12.02.1983 to the first plaintiff. Since then, the first plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

b) Subsequently, the first plaintiff sold an extent of 240 square yards in Sy.No.199 and 26 2/3 square yards in Sy.No.200 to the second plaintiff under a document bearing No.1619/1991 and delivered possession to her. The second plaintiff filed an application dated 20.11.1995 before the Gram Panchayath, Husnabad for construction of a building and accordingly permission was granted vide File No.A2/123/95 on 12.06.1997. Later, the second plaintiff constructed a house, which was allotted with house No. 11-101/2 and since then, she has been paying taxes. The first plaintiff further sold an extent of 255.5 square yards in Sy.Nos.199 and 200 vide document bearing No.1155/1994 dated 30.06.1994 and delivered the possession to Gogula Pushpavathi. The first plaintiff also sold another plot to one Parkala Venkataiah existing in between two plots purchased by plaintiff No.2 and Gogula Pushpavathi.

c) After selling the said lands to third parties, the first plaintiff was still in possession of the remaining land out of 1980 square yards. While the things stood thus, a decree in O.S.No.31 of 1985 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar came to be passed against ‘AASC’ in favour of Punjab National Bank, which is second defendant in the suit and final decree of sale of Ac.2.00 guntas of land belonging to it was passed arising out of mortgage transaction. The suit schedule property was put for sale for realizing the decreetal amount. The sale was conducted on 10.06.1997, specifying the schedule of the property to be sold in the auction. In the sale proclamation and also paper publication, the property to be sold was described within the following boundaries:

East : Plot of K. Vishwanatham

West : House of Malla Reddy

North: Plot of V. ramachandram

South: PWD Road to Warangal

d) Though second defendant has mentioned the properties as two acres in Sy. Nos.199 and 200, the boundaries were not mentioned in the schedul