HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

APPEAL SUIT No.143 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal Suit is filed challenging the judgment and decree

dated 30.12.2016 made in O.S.No.87 of 2008 on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB.Nagar.

2. The appellant herein is defendant, and respondents herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.87 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the

parties herein are referred to as arrayed in suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits in respect of two plots, viz., Plot Nos. 63 and 64 in Sy.No.99, Dattatreya Colony, Malapur Village, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring 292 and 305 square yards respectively. Plaintiff No.1 purchased Plot No.63 under a registered sale deed dated 31-07-1989 (Ex.A6), and Plaintiff No.2 purchased Plot No.64 under a registered sale deed dated 02-04-1990 (Ex.A7), both from their common vendor, late K. Raja Ratnam, who had acquired title through a registered sale deed dated 12-08-1968 (Ex.A5). Possession was delivered to the plaintiffs upon execution of the sale deeds. However, in the year 1998, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant had encroached upon the

suit properties and was running a school therein. Despite legal notice and proceedings under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, which initially culminated in a favorable judgment for the plaintiffs (Ex.A3), the same was set aside, granting liberty to the plaintiffs to seek possession through a civil suit (Ex.A4).

4. The defendant contended that she had purchased the suit properties through an oral agreement dated 27-02-1985 for Rs.20,000/-, paid Rs.10,000/- initially and Rs.6,000/- later (Ex.B2), and was delivered possession by Raja Ratnam. She claimed protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and relied on partial deposition of Raja Ratnam in LGC proceedings (Ex.B3). However, she failed to produce the original agreement of sale or the original title deed.

5. The plaintiffs marked thirteen exhibits (Exs.A1 to A13), including sale deeds, link documents, and subsequent transactions showing transfer of property to Sanjeeva Reddy (Exs.A9 to A11). They examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2. The defendant examined her husband and GPA holder as DW1 and an independent witness as DW2, who admitted lack of knowledge about ownership. Basing on the material thereof, the trial Court framed six issues, including ownership, entitlement to possession and mesne profits, and adverse possession.

6. After considering material thereof, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs, having valid registered sale deeds and having proved delivery of possession, were entitled to declaration of title and recovery of possession. The claim of defendant of oral agreement and part performance was rejected due to lack of documentary evidence and failure to fulfill statutory conditions under Section 53-A. The trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners and entitled to possession and mesne profits, while the defendant failed to establish any lawful claim. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred this appeal.

7. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri K.Seetharam Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

8. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession over Plot Nos. 63 and 64 in Sy.No.99, Dattatreya Colony, Mallapur Village, is misconceived and unsustainable in law. He contended that the appellant/defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the original owner, Raja Ratnam, on 27.02.1985 for a valid consideration of Rs.20,000/-, of which Rs.16,000/- was paid by 08.07.1986, and possession of the suit schedule properties was delivered to the appellant. The original title deed dated 12.08.1968 was also handed over to the appellant, and she has been in uninterrupted possession since then, runni