The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of ownership and continuous possession necessary for a declaration of rights over the disputed property.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) assailing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1821 of 2007, dated 30.03.2016, passed by the Additional Judge - cum - VI Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit.

Averments of the plaint:

3.1 Appellant-plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of house bearing No. 8-3-167/A/1 consisting of ground floor plus, two upper floors at Vikasapuri, S.R.Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Appellant-plaintiff was allotted open plot No.1, admeasuring 300 sq.yds. i.e., 250.80 sq.mts, being the member of M/s. B.H.E.L. (R and D) Employees Cooperative Housing Society (i.e., defendant No.4) under registered sale deed bearing document No.2026/1978 for valuable sale consideration. Initially, the appellant - plaintiff constructed ground floor after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. Subsequently, he constructed two upper floors after obtaining permission vide permit No.27/52, dated 08.11.2002 from Circle No.5, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.

3.2 At the time of purchase of the plot, there was left over open space of size 21 x 16 sq.ft., i.e., admeasuring 37.33 sq.yds., towards south-east corner of the plot besides electrical substation (suit schedule property). The open space became nuisance for the appellant-plaintiff and his family members being the immediate neighbours and the locality people used to dump all waste material and debris and it was used as a place of dumper bin. The appellant-plaintiff and his family members were badly effected and he requested the committee members of defendant No.4 - society for taking appropriate measures to safeguard the plaintiff's right. The president of defendant No.4 - society directed the appellant- plaintiff to take appropriate measures and left the issue to his convenience. Municipal authorities also expressed their inconvenience and directed the appellant-plaintiff to take appropriate measures. Appellant-plaintiff engaged private security personnel in removing the said nuisance during the year 1990 and constructed a compound wall and a servant room in the leftover space. Since 1990 the appellant-plaintiff and his family members are in peaceful, absolute and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Neither the defendant No.4 - society nor the Municipal authorities and Revenue authorities have set up any claim whatsoever over the same. Appellant-plaintiff has perfected his title by prescription, being in continuous, uninterrupted possession for all these years.

3.3. Defendant No.1 - society, which is formed subsequently, represented by its president and secretary (i.e., defendant No.2 and 3), without having right over the schedule property, started causing nuisance by way of obstructing the repair works taken up by the appellant - plaintiff. The defendants have no right, interest or title over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 constructed a mulgi for cooperative store towards the southern side of the suit schedule property in the year 1978. But left the open space as it belongs to them. Defendant No.1 has also constructed two mulgies to the south of the old mulgi constructed by defendant No.4. Defendant No.1 or defendant No.4 - societies have no right or title over the suit schedule property. On 05.07.2007 the defendants tried to remove the structures of the suit schedule property by engaging anti-social elements. On 07.07.2007, at about 08:30 a.m., to 09.00 a.m., defendants came with a mob of 20 to 25 persons, tried to dismantle the existing struct