The court confirmed the trial Court's ruling, emphasizing that permissible possession cannot establish a claim for adverse possession.

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.524 of 2013 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 - cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, the present appeal suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that she is the owner of the suit schedule property, recovery of possession, and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.200/- per day. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, Plot No.178 in Sy.No.135 admeasuring 120 Square Yards at Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, was originally allotted to her vendor Syed Mubasheeruddin Ahmed under the physically handicapped quota by the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited during 1982-83. Upon clearing the loan, the vendor was issued a clearance certificate and remained in possession. Later, in the year 2000, the vendor allowed the defendant and her husband to stay in the property as caretakers. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 24.07.2012. When the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate, she refused and allegedly threatened the plaintiff, prompting the suit. On the other hand, the defendant contended that she has been in possession for nearly 30 years and had applied for regularization under government schemes, asserting that she perfected title by adverse possession. She also relied on documents like electricity bills, ration card, and voter ID, claiming she was occupying Government land and denied the plaintiff’s title.

3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A15 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 08.12.2015, observed that the plaintiff had produced valid documentary evidence including the registered sale deed, mutation proceedings, and tax receipts, which established her title. In contrast, the defendant failed to produce any title document or cogent evidence to establish adverse possession. Her reliance on utility bills and identification documents was held insufficient to prove ownership. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit in part, declaring the plaintiff as the owner and directing the defendant to vacate and hand over possession within six months. However, the claim for future mesne profits was rejected due to inconsistencies between the pleadings and the relief sought. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.

5. Heard Sri Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Sarang Afzulpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant in its proper perspective and has erred in placing reliance on the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A15 filed by the respondent/plaintiff, all of which admittedly came into existence only in the year 2012. It is a settled principle of law that documents which come into existence after the institution of the suit cannot be given any evidentiary value. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to accord proper consideration to the documents of the appellants marked as Exs.B1 to B15, which