HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

C.C.C.A No. 103 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T :

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree Dated

29-04-2010 in OS No. 67 of 2005, on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, this Appeal is preferred

by the defendants – appellants.

2. For convenience sake, parties are referred to as

arrayed in the suit.

3. Originally, the suit was filed by respondents - plaintiffs for recovery of possession of suit schedule land admeasuring 13 square yards along with two rooms in dilapidated condition and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to block the entry for ingress and egress of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property bearing premises No. 28 and 29 situated at Picket, Secunderabad. It is stated, plaintiffs are enjoying the suit property as absolute owners and also the legal heirs of their father S.Hanumantha Rao. As they have been pre-occupied by their works and they are not in a position to look after the suit schedule property, they executed GPA in favour of one J. Ajay Babu to look after

the suit schedule property and plaintiffs are paying taxes to the Cantonment Board regularly.

According to plaintiffs, the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and already some of the portions collapsed and it is not fit for human dwelling. Hence, they are residing separately away from the said property. While so, defendants, who have no right, title or interest in the suit property, trespassed into the same to the extent of 32 square yards. As such plaintiffs filed a criminal case against defendants for their illegal encroachment into the suit schedule property, for which police, Marredpally registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2002 under Sections 448, 384 and 506 IPC.

According to plaintiffs, the remaining property of

407 square yards is in their possession and enjoyment. In the entrance, defendants are residing and not allowing plaintiff’s to enter into their portion. Plaintiffs further stated that subsequent to the purchase of house bearing Nos.28 & 29. admeasuring 439 square yards by their father, there were 5 tenants in the said premises by name 1) K.Kalavathi, 2) A Pandurangam, 3) T.Raj Kumar, 4) M Yadagiri and Y.V.Pandurangam and subsequent to the death of Y. V. Pandurangam, his legal heirs who are defendants succeeded to the tenancy rights and continued to occuру а portion of H.Nos. 28 & 29 situated at Picket, Secunderabad consisting of two rooms on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- exclusive of electricity consumption charges It is further stated that from time to time, A. Yadagiri, A. Pandurangam, G. Raj Kumar vacated their respective portions and plaintiffs are in possession and subsequently, as there were disputes and differences between K.Kalavathi and defendants herein, K. Kalavathi committed suicide in 1990, and thereafter her daughter vacated the said portion and handed over possession to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs stated that during 2002, defendants purchased the house bearing No.30 towards northern side of the suit schedule property and let out the same and thereafter they unlawfully and illegally encroached into the portion consisting of two rooms vacated by Smt. K. Kalavathi. Subsequently, defendants have also encroached another two rooms of the said premises bearing Nos. 28 & 29, situated at Picket, Secunderabad. Since defendants have falsely set up a wrongful claim in respect of the entire suit schedule premises, plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as exclusive owners and landlords of the suit schedule property and also entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. According to plaintiffs, defendants unlawfully trespassed into the suit schedule property, as such, they are liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- pm. from the date of suit till the date of recovery of possession.

4. Before the trial Court, the case of defendants is that plaintiffs are not in possession of suit property as on the date of filing the suit