HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 03.06.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, in A.S.No.78 of 2022 whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 16.08.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, in O.S.No.66 of 2015 was confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.66 of 2015, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of her two open plots bearing Nos.22 and 23 lies in LP.No.331/81 in Sy.No.23/AA admeasuring 711.1 Sq.yards equivalent to 611.5 Sq.mts situated at Ramareddy Road, Kamareddy Town (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). Plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2017, which was gifted by her husband Shaik Mahaboob Ali, since then plaintiff has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and with an intention to construct a residential building, she applied for permission to the defendant No.1 and permission was granted to construct first floor vide Proceedings No.G1/136/MCK/103/2007-08 dated 01-02-2008 and approved the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the plaintiff has started construction of foundation as per the approved plan and the said house was partly completed within 3 years. Later, defendant No.1 has issued notice to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff has constructed the house in deviation of the sanctioned plan by encroaching 40 feet width road. The defendant No.2 who is the Town Planning Officer frequently visited the schedule property and demanded illegal gratification. Since, the plaintiff has not fulfilled their demand, defendants threatened that they will dismantle the structures raised by the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 jointly filed their written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is claiming ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing Document No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2007 executed by her husband Shaik Mahaboob Ali, and the said Shaik Mahaboob Ali executed another gift settlement deed in favour Shaik Mubeen in respect of northern portion open plot No.23 in Sy.No.23/AA in LP.No.313/81 vide Doc.No.5617/2007 and rectified vide deed bearing No.4855/2015. On the same day, the husband of the plaintiff executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5619/2007 in favour of Parveen, who is daughter of Shaik Mahaboob Ali and the said documents rectified vide rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4854/2015, in respect of the southern portion of the open plot No.23 lies in Sy.No.23/AA vide LP.No.331/1981. The plaintiff has made construction encroaching 40 feet width layout road. After execution of the registered gift deed in favour of the children of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not having any land in open plot No.23. Later, Smt. Shaik Mubeen and Smt. Parveen, applied for permission to the defendant No.1 for making construction in plot No.23 and the defendant No.1 has granted construction permission vide Proceeding No.G1/106/BA/227/2015 dated 26-06- 2015 and proceeding No.G1/103/BA/224/2015 dated 26-06-2015 respectively and they have constructed their respective houses in open plot No.23. It is further averred that the permission for construction is valid only for 3 years from the date of the orders i.e., 01.02.2008. The plaintiff commenced construction in the year 2015 after lapses of 3 years, therefore, the said construction is deemed to be unauthorized as