THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.114 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015 in O.S.No. 653 of 2014, on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for recover of possession in respect of the suit schedule property was dismissed.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the main suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the present appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed the main suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., open plot admeasuring 127 sq.yards in Survey No.162 of Khajaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated thatthe plaintiffs obtained the suit schedule property from their ancestors and they are enjoying the suit schedule property along with their agnates with their forefathers. On 07.02.2014, the defendants besides forcefully dispossessing the plaintiffs, also started construction of a compound wall around the suit schedule SKS,J AS_114_2016 property by threatening the plaintiffs with dire consequences.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings,the trial Court has framed the following issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property?

5. Before the trial Court, the defendants remained ex-parte. The plaintiffs, in support of their case, examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.36.

6. By the impugned judgement, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.

7. Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the suit solely based on the ground that there is insufficient documentary evidence to grant the comprehensive relief of declaratory and also non-joinder of the other co-sharers. He further submitted that if necessary, the appellants will implead all the co-sharers and also file necessary documentary SKS,J AS_114_2016 evidence in respect of the suit schedule property before the trial Court. Hence, he restricted his prayer only to the extent of remanding the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court feels that ends of justice would meet if the matter is remanded to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. Further, liberty is granted to the appellants to file necessary documents and also to implead the co-

sharers as parties before the trial Court.

10. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015 passed in O.S. No. 653 of 2014 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to dispose of the said O.S. afresh after hearing both the parties. The Registry is directed to return the trial Court record, if any, received, to the trial Court forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

K.SUJANA, J

01.04.2025 gms THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.114 of 2016 DATE: 01.04.2025 gms