THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Medak in A.S.No.24 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree, dated 23.06.2020, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in O.S.No.15 of 2007 was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 17 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 17 in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case, which led to the filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the appellant filed a suit for Declaration and Recovery of Possession in respect of land admeasuring Acres 11.26 guntas Survey No.312, situated at Hasanmohammadpally village, H/o Achampally Mandal, Tekmal Mandal (for short ‘suit schedule property’). In the plaint, it is averred that appellant is the owner of suit schedule property by virtue of Registered Gift Deed dated 23.06.2005 executed by Abdul Razak i.e., father of the appellant; that possession was delivered to him and that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property; that respondent Nos.1 to 4 came to appellant in the 1^st week of July, 2005 and requested to give the suit land for cultivation on crop sharing basis and same was accepted; that respondents have failed to give the appellant’s share and the appellant issued a legal notice on 09.10.2006, demanding to give his share and also to handover the possession of the suit land; that on 10.12.2006, the appellant and his men tried to plough the land for cultivation and respondents obstructed them and claimed that they are the owners of the suit land. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached Revenue authorities and on verification, the appellant came to know that respondent Nos.1 to 4 in collusion with revenue authorities manipulated the records and the appellant preferred appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 for correction of entries and the same is pending. Hence, the suit.

4.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint including the alleged gift deed executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff and also possession of the father of the plaintiff and plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is pleaded that plaintiff’s father was not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of the gift deed, therefore, the question of delivery of the suit schedule property to plaintiff does not arise. It is also pleaded that defendants never approached plaintiff for cultivation of the suit land on crop share basis and in fact, defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property being purchasers and thus, the question of taking the land on crop share basis does not arise. It is specifically contended that the father of the plaintiff i.e., Abdul Razak has one younger brother by name Abdul Mehamood Ali, who died long back leaving behind his widow Johara bee and the said Johara bee and the father of plaintiff i.e., Abdul Razak sold an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.312 through a sale deed on 14.10.1973 in favour of defendant No.3, an extent of Acs.6-16 gts on 16.05.1976 and an extent of Ac.1-05 gts in Sy.No.312 on 18.05.1976, in favour of defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that the said Abdul Razak and Johara bee also alienated an extent of Ac.0- 30 gts, in Sy.No.312 on 22.05.1976 under sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and an extent of Ac.1-04 gts, in Sy.No.312 on

27.02.1992 under sale deed in favour of wife of defendant No.2 and another an extent of Ac.1-10 gts in Sy.No.312 on 27.02.1992 under sale deed in favour of defendant No.4; that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands since then as bona fide purchasers and have also perfected their title by way of adverse possess