HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S.No. 837 of 2011

J U D G M E N T :

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.

29 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 09.08.2011, plaintiff in the suit initially preferred this Appeal. During the pendency of appeal, she died and her legal representatives were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 4 vide order dated

27.09.2022 in 1.A. No. 3 of 2022.

2. For convenient sake, parties are referred to as arrayed in Original Suit.

3. As per the averments of plaint, one Badam Anthi Reddy was owner of agricultural lands (i) Ac. 1-29 guntas in Survey No. 94/AA; (ii) Ac. 0-13 guntas in Survey No. 97/EE; (m) Ac. 0-27 guntas in Survey No. 98/EE; (iv) Ac.1.12 guntas in Survey No. 204/EE situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District.

It is also averred in the plaint that Badam Anthi Reddy is the owner of agricultural lands of Acs. 2.00 guntas in Survey No. 444 and Acs. 4-00 guntas in Survey No. 445/AA situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District. However, defendants disputed this contention.

Plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 are daughters of Badam Anthi Reddy and after his demise, are the legal heirs to his properties with equal shares. It is averred that the 1^st defendant used to cultivate the lands and pay some amounts to plaintiff towards her share of income. She came to know that the 1st defendant got her name entered in revenue records in respect of lands in Survey Nos. 94/Α, 97/Ε, 98/Ε, 204/E and got her son’s name ie the 4^th defendant n respect of lands in Survey Nos. 444 and 445. Plaintiff also contended that she came to know that the 4^th defendant executed sale deed dated 30.05.1996 in respect of Acs. 2-00 guntas in Survey No. 444 and Acs. 4-00 guntas in Survey No. 445 in favour of defendants 5 to 8. Plaintiff averred that she is entitled to one-fourth share in the entire suit schedule property including the property sold to defendants 5 to 8 and prayed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

4. The 1st defendant vehemently contested the claim of plaintiff. She admits that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are legal heirs of one Baddam Anthi Reddy. At one breath, she denies the contention that suit schedule property originally belongs to their father Baddam Anthi Reddy and at the other breath, that her husband was illetum son-in-law of her father, they have taken care of Baddam Anthi Reddy and his wife till their last breath; after the death of her father, she has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and exclusive possessor by cultivating them with the help of her son i.e. the 4^th defendant. She alternatively contends that plaintiff never asserted her right in respect of suit schedule property for more than 40 years; her rights stood extinguished by lapse of time and the 1^st defendant has become absolute owner having been in possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years and thus acquired title by adverse possession.

5. Defendants 2 and 3 supported the version of plaintiff and stated in their written statement that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for one-fourth share each in the suit schedule property. In their written statement and additional written statement, defendants 5 to 8 principally contended that one Gulam Samdhani was the original owner of the land admeasuring Acs. 6-00 guntas in Survey Nos. 444 and 445/AA situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal, Medak District. Badam Anthi Reddy is not the owner or possessor of these lands. They further contended that they purchased these lands by way of registered sale deed Doc. No. 3055 of 1996, dated 30.05.1996 and neither plaintiff nor defendants 1 to 3 challenged this registered sale deed and hence, now they cannot lay their hand on it.

6. Basing on the averments of plaint, written statements, rejoind