HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.290 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal Suit is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2015 made in O.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB.Nagar.

2. The appellant herein is defendant No.2, and respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.53 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was instituted by plaintiffs, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mense profits in respect of the suit schedule property bearing House No. 3‑5‑58/1A, admeasuring 300 square yards situated at Indira Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs claimed absolute ownership of the property, having purchased it for valuable consideration, and asserted that husband of plaintiff No.1 - late Babu Arya, had inducted tenants and collected rents. After his death on 13‑04‑2002, the defendants, who were permitted occupants, refused to vacate and instead set up adverse claims. The contesting defendant No. 2 resisted the suit contending that defendant No. 1, Sathemma, was the legally wedded wife of late Babu Arya, and defendants 2 and 3 were his children. It was alleged that the suit property, along with other properties acquired by Babu Arya, devolved upon them as his heirs. The defendants denied permissive possession, asserted ownership, and further pleaded that the suit was barred by res judicata.

4. During trial, plaintiff No. 2 examined herself as P.W‑1 and one N. Laxman as P.W‑2, and relied upon Exs. A‑1 to A‑31, including municipal tax receipts, electricity bills, death certificates, marriage cards, and a will dated 20‑06‑2005 executed by Kalavathi in her favour. On the other hand, defendant No. 2 examined himself as D.W‑1, and produced Exs. B‑1 to B‑8, besides examining Uppar Laxmi as D.W‑2 and Boini Krishna as D.W‑3.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff was having title and interest in the suit property, whether the defendants were tenants and used to pay rents as contended by the plaintiff, whether their possession was as tenants or as absolute owners, whether they were liable to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property, whether the plaintiff was entitled to mense profits of Rs.70,000/‑ for the period from February 2006 to December 2008 at Rs.2000/‑ per month, and to what relief. Subsequently, additional issues were framed on 22‑04‑2015 as to whether the provisions of res judicata were applicable to the suit and to what relief.

6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the property stood in the name of Kalavathi, that the defendants were only permissive occupants, and that their plea of ownership was untenable. The suit was decreed declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner, directing defendant No. 2 to vacate and deliver possession within three months, awarding arrears of rent of Rs.70,000/‑ and future mense profits at Rs.2,000/‑ per month till realization. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present Appeal Suit is preferred. 7. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for appellant, Sri M.Koteshwar Rao, and Smt Manjari Ganu, , learned counsel for respondents.

8. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is against the principles of natural justice and good conscience, as the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence. He further submitted that the defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Babu Arya, father of the appellant/defendant No.2, and that the plaintiff was married with her consent. He contended that defendant No.1 is also known as Kalavathi @ Sattamma, and taking advantage of the similarity in names, the plaintiff has made a false claim over the suit schedule property. He further contended that during the lifetime of B