HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2019 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 19.12.2018 in O.S.No.3092 of 2016 passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the record.

3. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of house bearing No.14-8-417/85/B, (now present vacant land) admeasuring 100 Sq.meters, situated at Devi Nagar, Jumerat Bazar, Hyderabad (herein after referred as “suit schedule property”).

5. In the plaint, it is referred that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having acquired through registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.422 of 2011, dated 23.02.2011 from her mother and the defendants without any right or title were interfering with the suit schedule property and on 06.12.2016, they tried to dispossess the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction. Hence, the suit.

6. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the registered gift deed is a created document and not binding on the defendants and there is no link document to the gift deed and mother of plaintiff has no right or title to the suit schedule property. Therefore, gift deed executed by the mother of plaintiff does not confer/transfer any title to the plaintiff. Further, in the gift settlement deed, existence of a room was not mentioned and the suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is different from the property claimed by the defendants and that after obtaining construction permission, the plaintiff cannot claim the property of the defendants. It is further averred that the property claimed by the defendants originally belong to one Bikam Singh, who have perfected his title having purchased the same through a notarized Agreement of Sale in the year 1989. Due to heavy rains in the year 1996, the house was collapsed and the defendants could not reconstruct the same and that the plaintiff is claiming the said property. It is averred that the defendants have paid municipal tax for the year 2016-17 and defendant No.1 executed gift settlement deed bearing document No.2359 of 2016, dated 13.04.2016 in favour sons and daughters for property bearing No.14-8-417/3/A, admeasuring 100 Sq.yards situate at Lakdi-ka-Adda, Puranapool, Hyderabad which was totally different boundaries.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?

3. To what relief ?”

8. During the course of trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 and 2 were examined, however, no documents were marked. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence as well as pleadings decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2018. The trial Court in its’ judgment made the following observations:

“The documents relied by the plaintiff are much prior to filing of suit. Plaintiff mother resident of the suit premises. She has resided in the suit premises. Being son of Susheela Bai Plaintiff also claiming possession. Susheela Bai died in the year 2014 and prior to her death she executed Registered Gift Settlement Deed way back in the year SAGE Cat Dhoolpet and during life time Susheela Bai res