THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

11-09-2017 in OS.No.882 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judge Cum VI Senior Judge, Hyderabad, where under, the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondents No.3 to 7 and also against the present appellant was decreed by the trial Court, the 6^th defendant in the above referred suit has filed this first Civil Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the suit filed by the respondent No.1 herein.

2. Before adverting to the grounds under which this appeal is filed, it is just and necessary to refer the averments made by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff in the above referred suit and as to how the other parties to the suit contested the same.

3. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. The plaintiff No.1 has filed the said suit with a prayer to declare the survey conducted by defendant No.1 and its report dated 22-03-2007 is null and void and not binding the plaintiffs and also for a consequential injunction to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. As per the plaint filed by the plaintiff No.1, it has been claimed that the husband of the 1^st plaintiff purchased House bearing No.23-6-855 admeasuring 175 Sq.yrds at Shalibanda, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed dated 30-08-1993, defendants No.2 and 3 have assessed the property for tax and started collecting property tax from the plaintiffs. The husband of the 1^st plaintiff died on 17-08-2002 and thereafter, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 23-05-2007, she received a notice from 3^rd defendant and was informed that there was a survey conducted by the 1^st defendant and was asked for a no objection certificate. Therefore, she made an application to MRO, Bahadurpura under Right to Information Act and came to know that there was no such letter issued from the office of MRO and realized that the defendants were playing hide and seek with the sentiments and emotions of the plaintiff and it was at the instance and instigation of her neighbours. Therefore, the plaintiff by reserving right to initiate administrative action and to claim damages for issuing such a false notice, filed the above referred original suit on the ground that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property prior to her predecessors in title were in possession for more than 60 years with absolute title and possession. But the neighbors have developed grudge over the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 has also claimed that the neighbours, who are politically influenced and financially sound managed to get and manipulate the panchanama and a survey report through defendant No.1. But the report is biased, arbitrary and against the established norms, as such, she addressed a legal notice to defendant No.1 on 26-03-2007.

4. The 1^st plaintiff has also claimed that total area in their possession was 175 Sq.yrds. but the defendants have claimed an extent of 67 Sq.yrds. was encroached by the plaintiffs. There was no interference by the Government at any time. The property was in their possession since 1960. Therefore, even otherwise, the plaintiff has perfected her right over the property by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare the said survey report is null and void are binding them. In order to claim this said relief, the 1^st plaintiff has relied on the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act and they were never given any opportunity or notice prior to the alleged inspection of 1^st defendant, thereby, the panchanama is malafide and illegal.

5. It appears from the record that while the suit was pending before the trial Court, and before the 6^th defendant filed his written statement, 2^nd plaint