HON’BLESRIJUSTICELAXMINARAYANAALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

ThisSecondAppealisfiledchallengingthejudgmentanddecree dated 13.03.2025 in A.S.No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad, whereby and whereunder the appeal was partly allowed setting aside judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 in O.S.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil JudgeatNarayankhed, Medak District.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan, learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2015 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of suit open plot in survey No.22/1 admeasuring extent 201.66 square yards consisting of 2 bits admeasuring 100.83 square yards each situated at Narayankhed village, Medak District.In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the family friends since long time and intended to purchase an open land/plot in Narayankhed village for the purpose of constructionofhouse;thatoneAnushamma@Anshammaisthe owner and possessor of the land covered under survey No.22/1 situated at Narayankhed town and Mandal District Medak and the said Anushamma offered to sell a piece of land in survey No.22/1 toan extent of 201.66 square yards and the plaintiffs have accepted to purchase the same; and accordingly, Anushamma received the entire sale consideration of Rs.70,700/- and executed registered sale deed bearing document No.13578/2005 dated 07.10.2005 and delivered possession of the said land to the plaintiffs.

5. It is further averred that the defendants are highly influential persons in the Gram Panchayath having support of the political leaders of Narayankhed; that defendants without having any right, title or interest have illegally raised basement in the suit plot and plaintiffscametoknowaboutthesameandquestionedthedefendants about construction of illegal and unauthorized basement in the suit open plot, but the defendants have denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs demanded to remove the illegal basement in the suit open plot, but defendants denied and refused. Therefore, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction and also to pay damages at Rs.1,00,000/-

per year.

6. Defendants entered appearance but they failed to file written statement and therefore, they were set ex parte.

7. Basing on the pleadings in the plaint, the trial Court framed following issue:

“Whethertheplaintiffsareentitledfor thereliefofdecreeasprayedfor?”

8. To substantiate the case, P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and Ex.A.1/registered sale deed was marked on their behalf. 9. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated

31.08.2015 by making following observations: “(i)The sketch map filed by plaintiffs herein along with the suit only the suit plot was shown.There is no clear evidence beforethe Court where suitplotis situated in survey No.22/1 because generally any survey number consists many plots.Total sketch of survey No.22/1 because generally and survey number consists many plots.Total sketchof survey No.22/1 is not filed before the Court as to show the exact location of suit plot in survey No.22/1.It is further observed whether the plaintiffs have purchased the suitplot in any venture is not clearly mentioned before the Court.Whether survey No.22/1 is an agricultural land or commercial oneisnotbroughtonrecord.Whether anyplotting was done in survey No.22/1 is not clearly brought on record.

(ii)Itis further seenthat the plaintiffsarepleading that the defendants have constructed basement in suit plot, no photographs or CD is filed before the Court to show the constructions made by the defendants.Nootherwi