Ownership claims require clear evidence, and adverse possession is incompatible with claims of title, as established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree in OS.No.744 of 2007, dated 16.10.2019 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.744 of 2007.

3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit to declare her as the absolute owner of the schedule property bearing Municipal No. 4-124/1 (Part), Old No.4-96/29, Plot No.46 in Survey Nos.331 to 334 admeasuring 269 square yards situated at Moosapet Village of Kukatpally Municipality.

3.2. It is stated in the plaint that appellant-defendant is the divorced husband, their marriage is dissolved by virtue of decree of divorce dated 07.01.2002 by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. Respondent-plaintiff is a Post-Graduate and worked as part time Lecturer at Hyderabad during the subsistence of her marital relationship. Respondent-plaintiff got appointed as Excise Inspector and joined in Service at East Godavari District, State of Andhra Pradesh in November, 1997 and she was in service by the date of decree of divorce and was working as Excise Inspector at Tadepalligudem, her parents gave her considerable cash to purchase the suit schedule property and she entrusted the same to appellant-defendant which was deposited in Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad and her husband was maintaining the cash on her behalf and they have no house of their own in Hyderabad. Respondent-plaintiff suggested the appellant- defendant to purchase a house site so that residential house can be constructed thereon with her money and they came to know that one Sunil D. Thakar, S/o. Dayalji D. Thakar is ready to sell the site as he made his property in to house plots for reasonable price. Thakar has authorized Mahesh M. Thakar as his GPA to sell the house plots, after negotiations the GPA holder offered to sell the suit plot to the respondent-plaintiff for Rs.26,889/- and requested her to pay the sale consideration by way of Demand Draft, on her instructions appellant-defendant has withdrawn the amount from Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch from her account and obtained a Demand Draft on 25.11.1993 and handed over the same to the vendor who encashed it and the GPA holder has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 26.11.1993 vide Document No.10909/1993 and also delivered the possession, by the date of delivery of the property there was a small shed on South West of the Plot and subsequently the respondent-plaintiff has raised a shed in the site for the purpose of residence and the couple lived therein till she left Hyderabad to join her duties in 1997.

3.3. The appellant-defendant with a dishonest intention to grab the suit schedule property squatted over the property and in spite of request he did not vacate the suit land and the efforts made by her with the help of Dr.N.S.D.Prasada Rao, P.Srinivasa Rao proved futile thereby the respondent-plaintiff got issued legal notice on 13.06.2007 to deliver the possession and to pay damages for the use and occupation @ Rs.5,000/- per month for which the appellant-defendant gave reply on 29.06.2007 with false averments stating that he perfected the title by way of adverse possession and further contended that the sale deed dated 26.11.1993 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff is forged and fabricated.

4. Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and contended that it is he who has purchased the suit schedule property for a sale considerat