THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2000 passed in O.S. No.1828 of 1997 by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the notice in File No.C/2601/1997 dated 07.07.1997 issued by the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad (defendant No.2) as null and void, that the plaintiff was the absolute title holder of the suit schedule property and consequently to grant perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property i.e. open land covered by four rooms within the compound bearing Municipal No.3-2-592 situated at Rahamathbagh, Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

5. The plaintiff contended that he was the owner and possessor of the above suit schedule property. He purchased two houses bearing Nos.3-2-523 and 3-2-592 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.193/1988 dated 01.02.1988 from Smt. Ummahani Khusroo Banu for a consideration of Rs.48,000/-. The said Ummahani Khusroo Banu became owner of the house bearingNo.3-2-523 and 3-2-592 by virtue of a oral gift by delivery of possession from her son Abdul Basit Ansari, which was confirmed by the Memorandum of Confirmation dated 05.01.1981 notarized on the said date. The said Basit Ansari was unmarried and died leaving behind him his mother Smt. Ummahani Khusroo Banu W/o. Late Sri Abdul Ghani Ansari Khusroo Shah Nizami, who was the legal heir of her son Basit Ansari. The said Basit Anasari purchased the house bearing No.3-2-523 and 3-2-592 under registered sale deed executed by Gaddam Kista Reddy vide document No.3032/1962 dated 21.11.1962 of Joint Sub- Registrar, Hyderabad. The said Gaddam Kista Reddy purchased house bearing No.3-2-523 and 3-2-592 through registered sale deed document No.484/1960 dated 04.03.1960 from Fah-E-Rasool Khan. Fah-E-Rasool Khan was in possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No.3-2-592 before the sale in 1960. Thus, the plaintiff and his predecessors in title had been in possession and occupation of the land covered by four rooms within the compound of house bearing No.3-2-592 for more than 37 years.

The plaintiff demolished the four rooms within the compound bearing Municipal No.3-2-592 with a view to construct a new house and obtained permission from MCH by removing the existing building in permit No.193/48 for house bearing No.523 and 592/3/85 dated 30.06.1988. The plaintiff demolished the four rooms existing in the compound, but due to lack of funds could not make construction of house or building in the land bearing Municipal No.3-2-592. The plaintiff paid the property tax to the house bearing No.3-2-523 and 3-2-592 which were adjacent to each other. Thus, the plaintiff and his predecessors in title had become the owner and possessor of the land covered by four rooms within the compound bearing Municipal No.3-2-592 for more than 37 years and acquired title to the said property. There was a prescription of possession backwards under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The open land covered by four rooms within the compound bearing Municipal No.3-2-592 was not a government land in Town Survey No.56, Abadi. Even otherwise, the plaintiff acquired title to the suit property by being in possession for more than 37 years by adverse possession and the title of Government if any was extinguished by operation of law under Section 27 read with Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. The Plaintiff submitted that the second defendant issued a notice under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in File No.C/2601, 1997 dated 07.07.1997 in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff submitted an explanation on 21.07.1997 denying the title of the Gov