THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA SECOND APPEAL Nos.102, 103, 106, 109, 110 & 112 of 2003

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Since a common issue arises in these second appeals, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. S.A.No.102 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.178 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. S.A.No.103 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.183 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

4. S.A.No.106 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.184 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

5. S.A.No.109 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.182 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

6. S.A.No.110 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.187 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

7. S.A.No.112 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.179 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

8. The brief facts of the cases are that in the batch of suits O.S. Nos.1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, and 1886 of 1988, the plaintiffs filed individual suits seeking perpetual injunction against the sole defendant, Jehangir Pasha, to restrain him from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. Each plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner and possessor of a specific plot, which they had purchased from the Ravi Co-operative Housing Society (RCHS), and alleged that the said Society had acquired the land from late M.V. Raja Rao, the original assignee of land in Survey Nos.69/1 and 69/2 of Trimulgherry village. They contended that ever since the purchase, they had been in continuous, exclusive, and peaceful possession and had made improvements such as leveling and constructing boundary walls. They further alleged that the defendant, a local influential individual residing near the suit lands, had attempted to forcibly trespass into their plots on multiple occasions in April 1988, leading to the filing of police complaints. On this basis, they sought a permanent injunction against the defendant’s interference.

9. The defendant filed a common written statement across the batch of suits, strongly denying the title and possession of the plaintiffs and also challenging the title of RCHS, stating that the sale deeds executed by T. Shivlingam (alleged GPA holder of late Raja Rao) in favour of RCHS were fraudulent, having been executed after the death of Raja Rao. He further stated that the society itself was floated by Shivlingam, benami, in the name of his son. The defendant asserted that the suit plots did not form part of Survey Nos.69/1 or 69/2, but rather, were situated in Survey No.62, which belonged to him and his predecessors. He produced a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1958, under which his father and two others had purchased Ac.16.00 of land in Survey Nos.61 and 62 from Mirza Yakub Baig and others, which was later divided into plots and partially sold. The remaining land was retained and possessed by the family of the defendant. He maintained that Survey No.69/1 lies east of his land and that the land of Raja Rao had already been alienated and partially acquired by the Government for an electricity substation. He emphasized that the plaintiffs’ claim of possession was false, as the disputed plots were never part of Raja Rao’s land and were never delivered to the plaintiffs. He further stated that based on survey and demarcation conducted by the official Survey and Land Records department, the suit plots were conclusively found to fall within Survey No.62, and not within th