In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove a clear and continuous chain of title; discrepancies in boundaries and extent weaken the claim. Finalized Town Survey Land Record entries are conclusive evidence of land ownership.

JUDGMENT:

This City Civil Court Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree, dated 02.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the suit filed by respondent No.1/

plaintiff was decreed.

2. Appellants are defendant Nos.1 to 3; respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.4 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.11 of 2016.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the above declaration suit seeking to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ie. house bearing No.1-3-448/13 to an extent of 120 square yards, situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”); to grant mandatory and permanent injunction directing the defendants to remove the board installed by them and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property.

4. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property i.e., residential house bearing No.1-3-448/13 to an extent of 120 square yards, situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through registered sale deed vide document No.1690 of 2004, dated 16.06.2004 from U.Kasturi Bai W/o. late U.Manohar Rao. It is further stated that the vendor of the plaintiff had acquired the property through a Will Deed bearing document No.173/2, dated 24.10.2002 executed by her husband U.Manohar Rao, S/o. Keshava Rao and the said U.Manohar Rao inherited the property from his father U.Keshava Rao as he being his only son.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that V.Keshava Rao, had purchased the said property from one Narayan Das through registered sale deed dated 12.09.1345 Fasli and the said Narayana Das had purchased the said property from one Narsiga, through registered sale deed in the year 1917. Thus, the chain of transactions are valid legal and continuous since 98 years.

6. It is further stated that on 23.02.2015, defendant No.3-Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad, had erected a Board in the open area of plaintiff’s property stating that the suit property belongs to the Government. Without verifying any records, though the suit property does not belong to the Government and it is a private property having title over the same for the last 100 years, now the defendants came and claimed that the suit property is a Government property and erected the said sign Board at the instance of certain local people, who started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.

7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Government having kept quiet for so long years now came and make a claim over the suit property. When the plaintiff wanted to construct a house in the suit property, he made an application, dated 09.10.2013, before defendant No.4 seeking permission for construction of a residential house and defendant No.4 refused to grant permission and directed the plaintiff to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector, Hyderabad. It is stated that insisting of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector, Hyderabad, is arbitrary and as such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 21.12.2015 under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the defendants calling them to restrain from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of th