JUDGMENT :

P.SREE SUDHA, J.

SECOND APPEAL No.321 of 2022

This second appeal is preferred by Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad represented by its Principal, Government of Telangana represented by the Secretary, PWD (R &D), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and the E.E., South Building Division, Khairatabad, Hyderabad/defendants against Mahanth Mahesh Das & Smt.Gangabai (died per LRs respondent/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4), Anand Das & Meera Chandr Sekhar (plaintiffs).

2. O.S.No.313 of 1981 was filed by plaintiffs for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 03.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal A.S.No.291 of 2005 and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this second appeal is preferred by the defendants in the suit with the following substantial questions of law:

“i. Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and since the land being Inam land, the authorities under the Inam (Talanana Area) Abolition Act, 1955 have the jurisdiction and since the plaintiffs have not obtained any Occupancy Rights Certificate, the suit schedule lands are deemed to have vested with the Government?

ii. Whether the lower appellate Court misconstrued the doctrine of Estoppel in view of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act? Whether Lower Appellate Court misread Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, since, the right, title interest and relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants having been specifically denied the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiffs to prove their title, interest and rights over the suit schedule property?

iii. Whether the pleadings of the Appellant with regard to denial of jural relationship made in written statement amounts to denial of relationship of land lord and tenant in the teeth of appreciation of the provisions of Inam Abolition Act, 1955?

iv. Whether documents of title which are the foundation of any rights of the parties stood proved and disproved by the respective parties in accordance with Section 100 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act?

v. Whether the suit lads are temple lands and after abolition of Inams Act, 1955 have vested with the state as per section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955?

vi. The respondent-plaintiff have neither pleaded nor proved Ex.A.1 to A.25 in order to prove their title as per the Indian Evidence Act?

vii. Whether the Courts below have taken judicial notice and cognizance of the survey records produced by the Appellants as per the Evidence Act?

viii. Whether finding of the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit?

ix. Whether misconstruing the evidence of plaintiff is contrary to Evidence Act? And also non-consideration of material evidence placed by the Appellant is in itself contrary to Evidence Act.

x. whether reasons given by the lower Courts are found to be perverse and amounts to be the substantial questions of law?”

3. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel at length, perused the record and also documents filed by them.

4. The parties herein referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. The plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the suit land bearing survey Nos.18 and 20 admeasuring 2 bighas situated at Notaguda Village, Baghat Taluq of Atraf, Balda District now Rangamahal Road, Hyderabad, which was obtained through the ancestor of the plaintiff viz., Mahant Balramdas, who was granted inam through Muntakab dated 2^ndJamadius Sani 1301 Hijri relates to file No.477/1288, jurisdiction No.3415 and Tameel No.23452. The plaintiff is hereditary Mahant of Sri Laxminarayana Temple and his succession was recognized vide File No.79/1 dated 1stThir 1357 Fasil of Ecclesiastical Department H.E.H. the Nizam. About more than 75 years ago the suit land was given on lease to the then British Resident on a monthl