THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals are preferred by the appellants-defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2019 in O.S. No.541 of 2008 passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. CCCA No.205 of 2019 was filed against the decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff while CCCA No.228 of 2019 was preferred against the dismissal of the counter claim of the appellants-

defendants.

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

4. O.S.No.541 of 2008 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking to declare her as owner of the property bearing Municipal No.15-7-390, admeasuring 34.66 sq.yds., situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad and to direct the defendants to vacate and hand-over vacant possession of the said property. She claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards past mesne profits and Rs.50,000/- per month for future mesne profits along with permanent injunction, restraining the defendants or anyone claiming through them from dealing with the suit property.

5. The case of the plaintiff was that her husband late Balkishan Panwar had purchased two mulgies bearing Municipal Nos.15-7-389 and 390 admeasuring 68.99 sq. yds., situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad under registered sale deed dated 24.11.1978. The said sale deed was executed by the Court of the I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on behalf of the vendor. Thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff got the tenant vacated in occupation and got possession of mulgi bearing No.15-7-389. Insofar as the suit property (Mulgi bearing No.15-7-390), the husband of the plaintiff permitted the defendant No.1, his first cousin for carrying on business under the name and style of “M/s. Chunnilal Ganga Bishan” (Partnership Firm) free of rent as permissive possession. The defendant No.1 was neither the owner nor the tenant of the suit schedule property. No rents were paid by the defendant No.1. The suit premises was in the possession of defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The defendant No.2 was the brother of defendant No.1. The defendant No.3 was the son of defendant No.1. The defendant No.4 was illegally set up by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 for running a pan dabba in part of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 had no right to part with the possession of the suit schedule property in favor of any third person. The inter se transactions between the defendants were illegally void ab-intio and not binding on the plaintiff. She further submitted that her husband died intestate on 12.06.2005 leaving behind him, the plaintiff and her three sons, namely, Shyam Sunder Panwar, Sri Rajender Kumar Panwar and Sri Devkishan Panwar. Thereafter, the sons of the plaintiff, out of love and affection transferred their respective shares in the two mulgies in favour of the plaintiff vide gift settlement deed dated 02.05.2006. Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the two mulgies bearing Municipal Nos.15-7-389 and 390 situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. During his lifetime, the husband of the plaintiff had given the above two properties as collateral security and guarantee for the loan obtained by the defendant No.3. The loan taken by the defendant No.3 from M/s.Vijaya Bank, Bank Street, Hyderabad was discharged by the husband of the plaintiff and got released the same from the mortgage.

5.1. During his lifetime, the husband of the plaintiff had let out the mulgi bearing Municipal No.15-7-389 to the tenant and rent was being collected by him. Insofar as the suit schedule property is concerned, the husband of the plaintiff had given the same to the defendant No.1 being his relative for carrying on business. The said possession was only permissive in nature. As the defendant No.1, without any right had parted with the possession of the schedule property in favour of a third person, the plaintiff and her sons requested the defendants to vacate and han