A decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-binding, and ownership must be established through credible evidence rather than mere entries in revenue records.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant-respondent-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2009 passed in A.S.No.04 of 2006 by the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2005 in O.S.No.16 of 2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction with regard to the suit schedule property which was in two bits one Ac.2-00 gts and other 90 Sq. Yds. in Sy.No.44 dry land situated at Suryapet Revenue Village. As per the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 was her husband and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1964, as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage, the mother and brothers of plaintiff gave Ac.4-00 gts. of dry land situated at Tudimudi Village and 10 thulas of gold to the plaintiff towards pasupu-kumkuma. Some years after the marriage, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 sold Ac.4-00 gts. of dry land situated at Tudimudi (V) of Shaligouraram Mandal which was the stridhana property of the plaintiff and with that money, purchased the suit land in two bits, Ac.2-00 gts. vide registered document No.1098 of 1976 on 10.06.1976 and 90 Sq. Yds. of land in the same survey number from the same owners i.e., K. Pichaiah and Mattaiah vide document No.594 of 1978 on 16.06.1978. Thus, the suit land was purchased with the stridhana property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was not having any right over the same. The two original sale deeds were in the custody of defendant No.1. After the marriage, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived together under one roof as husband and wife and they were blessed with a daughter by name Padma Kumari. After that the defendant No.1 started saying that there were no male issues and that he wanted to contract second marriage and contracted second marriage in the year 1980. Since then, the plaintiff was living in a separate house at Suryapet. The suit land was under Ayakut of Musi canal. The defendant No.1 on behalf of the plaintiff used to give the suit land to others on crop share basis and the plaintiff was taking her share from the persons whoever were cultivating. The defendant No.2 used to look after agricultural operations with the cultivators and after deducting the agricultural expenses, the remaining amount was shared equally by the cultivator and the plaintiff. Thus, she was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land. After purchase, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff as pattedar and possessor. The defendant No.1 gradually changed his attitude towards the plaintiff and developed an indifferent attitude towards her and with an intention to cause loss to the plaintiff was trying to sell the suit land to others. On coming to know about it, the plaintiff questioned the defendant No.1. He initially denied the same. When she came to know that the defendant No.1 was making hectic efforts to sell the suit land to defendants 2 to 4, who were the real estate businessmen, the plaintiff again questioned the defendant No.1. He denied the title of the plaintiff and stated that he got transferred the suit land in his name and they he would sell away the same. The plaintiff submitted that no amount was spent by defendant No.1 for purchase or development of the suit land. The suit land was purchased with the stridhana property of the plaintiff, which was given by her mother and brothers. On enquiry, she came to know that defendant No.1 in collusion with the Revenue Authorities had got mutated the suit land in his name in the year 1984-1985 without any right or documents. The plaintiff had not executed any document in favour of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 got mutated his name behind the back of the plaintiff in collusion with the Revenue Authorities. As such, the