HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2023 in A.S.No.227 of 2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge at Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment dated 11.09.2018 in O.S.No.934 of 2008 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy District, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant.

3. The appellant herein is defendant No.4 and respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were referred in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule A property and to declare the title of plaintiff in respect of schedule B property and other consequential relief of physical possession after dismantling the temporary structures.

5. In the plaint, it is averred that, originally, one Kavali Yellaiah and Mohd.Hayath were joint owners and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.No.92 admeasuring Acs.14.13 guntas situated at Mansoorabad Village, Hyderabad East. They have developed the lands and disposed of the plots to various persons, after obtaining the layout from the Gram Panchayat on 14.03.1968. One Vangala Venkat Reddy has purchased the plot bearing No.129 to an extent of 260 Sq.yards (herein after referred as suit schedule A property) under registered sale deed document bearing No.1100/1969, dated 28.03.1969 and the said Vangaala Venkat Reddy had executed a registered GPA bearing document No.9 of 1980 on 19.05.1980 in favour of Mr.M.Poorna Reddy, who executed registered sale deed bearing document No.7124 of 1980 on 22.07.1980 in favour of plaintiff and that the plaintiff has been in possession of suit schedule property.

6. It is averred that in the month of 2nd week of November, 2007, defendant No.1 made efforts to encroach the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has constructed a compound wall in the months of November/ December, 2007. On 04.02.2008, when the plaintiff visited the suit plot, he noticed that dismantling of compound wall constructed by the plaintiff on northern side, and another compound wall was constructed across plot No.129 regarding 95 Square yards of B Schedule property and thus, plot No.129 is bifurcated into two parts, part A to an extent of 165 square yards and part B to an extent of 95 square yards and further a tin roof was constructed in Schedule B plot; that on verification of records at Sub-Registrar Office, Saroornagar, the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have colluded and created a false, sham and nominal document to usurp the schedule B property. Defendant No.2 claimed that he purchased B Schedule property from one Mohd.Basheer through a GPA N.Sekhar and the said Mohd.Basheer has no right and title in respect of Plot No.129, to an extent of 260 Sq.yards, since his father sold plot No.129 during his life time itself. It is further averred that defendant No.3 has constructed two more small rooms and open gate towards road on southern side and has been continuing with the construction. The plaintiff approached the police, L.B.Nagar, but they have refused to entertain the complaint. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit.

7. Defendant No.2 remained ex-parte.

8. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement opposing the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time.

9. It is averred that defendants have purchased plot Nos.333 and 334 in Sy.Nos.12 to 16 of Tummubowli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District through two registered documents vide document Nos.961 and 962 of 2008, dated 25.02.2008 from their original vendors Smt.Sharada Kumari and Pushpalatha, the legal heirs of late Shanker and Chandraiah, who have p