THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.803 of 2008 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, legal heirs of late Baba Govind Das, filed a suit seeking declaration of absolute ownership over the suit schedule property measuring Ac.2-08 guntas at Temple Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 25.06.1985 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, as null and void. They also sought recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was originally gifted to Baba Govind Das in 1341 Fasli and, after his death, devolved upon his son Baba Lakshman Das and thereafter upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.2 was only a lessee paying Nuzul rents till 1985, and they came to know in July 2005 that defendant No.2 had sold the property to defendant No.1 without title.

3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 contested the suit, while defendant No.2 remained ex parte. Defendant No.1 denied the plaintiffs’ ownership and claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed in 1985 and had been in continuous possession since then. He also pleaded adverse possession, limitation, and lack of cause of action. He further stated that in 2006, the plaintiffs compromised the matter, received Rs.60,000/- in full settlement, and executed affidavits relinquishing their rights. The plaintiffs denied executing such affidavits and alleged them to be forged.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A9 are marked. DW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B12 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 02.01.2002, decreed the suit holding that the tenancy rights in the suit property were inalienable and defendant No.2, having only leasehold rights, could not convey ownership to defendant No.1. The alleged affidavits and receipts relied upon by defendant No.1 were found not to be valid relinquishment documents, as relinquishment required compulsory registration. The trial Court found that the suit was filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the impugned sale and was not barred by limitation and concluded that the plaintiffs had established their ownership, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners, setting aside the sale deed dated 25.06.1985, and directed defendant No.1 to vacate and hand over possession within three months. Aggrieved thereby, the appeallant/defendant No.1 filed the present appeal suit.

6. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri P. Vidya Sagar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was contrary to law and evidence, as no proper issues were framed on the pleas of adverse possession, limitation, and non-joinder of necessary parties, which deprived the appellant of an opportunity to adduce proper evidence. He further submitted that the plaintiffs failed to produce the alleged lease deed or any proof of rent payments, and PW.1 admitted to not having seen the tenants, falsifying the claim of leasehold rights. He argued that Ex.A5, the alleged Nuzul deed, was not proved, and the trial Court wrongly treated defendant No.2 as a lessee rather than a purchaser under the sale deed of 25.04.1956 and that defendant No.2, having enjoyed the property as absolute owner since 1956, validly sold it to the appellant in the year 1985, and the appellant had since perfected his title by adverse possession.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court erred in declaring the sale deed da