HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2025 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

2. The appellants are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present second appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S No.16 of 2009 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction and damages of Rs.20,000/-. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff’s husband and defendant No.2 are brothers and defendant No.1 is wife of defendant No.2; that plaintiff’s husband purchased a house site bearing Municipal No.3-5- 448/1(3-5-448/1) an extent of 217 Square yards at Gouthama Budda Veedhi, Kotagally, Nizamabad for Rs.1,10,000/- (‘subject property’ for brevity) under unregistered sale deed dated 10.10.1991 from one Smt. Daralaxmi and possession was delivered to him in the year 1991; that subsequently, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad collected deficit stamp duty vide document dated 01.10.2003 and all the link documents were handed over to the plaintiff’s husband and independent rooms were constructed in order to lease, wherein defendants were permitted to reside in two rooms portion of subject property without any rent for one year. While so, O.S.No.307 of 2001 was filed by one shyamala claiming 106.77 Square yards of the subject property against plaintiff and her husband which was dismissed on 30.07.2004. In the said suit, vendor of plaintiff’s husband i.e., Daralaxmi, appeared as DW.3 deposing that she sold the entire house plot to plaintiff’s husband and delivered possession and link documents; that in the municipal record, the subject property was in the name of Gangareddy(vendors’ vendor of Daralaxmi) till 2007 and subsequently, plaintiff’s husband name was mutated and thereafter, the subject property was gifted to plaintiff under registered gift deed No.3520 of 2005 dated 29.03.2005 and her name was mutated in the municipal records. Thereafter, the plaintiff sold an extent of 104.25 Square yards of the subject property vide document No.10612 of 2006 dated 11.09.2008 and after the sale, she is the owner of remaining extent of subject property i.e., 3-5-208. In the meanwhile, defendants refused to vacate the subject premises and plaintiff issued legal notice on 15.02.2006, in spite of the same, the defendants did not vacate; that plaintiff published in the news paper on 25.09.2007 that she intends to sell the balance portion of the subject property. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.1 issued legal notice on 27.09.2007, claiming absolute ownership over the subject property by enclosing Photostat copies of agreement dated 30.07.1994, GPA deed dated 01.08.1994 and sale deed dated 28.07.2006 and forging the signatures of Dara Laxmi.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed suit.

3.1 Defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint stating that Daralaxmi has executed the agreement of Sale/GPA No.276/1994 dated 01.08.1994, and defendant No.2 purchased the property and he constructed two rooms and structures in the year 1994-95 and was living in it along with his family and he transferred the property to defendant No.1 through registered sale deed No.9309/06 dated 28.07.2006 and that there was mistake with regard to house number and on 04.01.2008, a registered rectification deed bearing No.90/2008 was entered and thus, defendant No.1 is absolute owner of the property and has obtained electricity connection and is paying the property tax and that the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiff are not correct and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings