IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.81 of 2009 Date: 18.02.2026 Between Shyam Sunder Sarda and another …Appellants AND Dr. Madhukar Chavan …Respondent

JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the appellants under Order of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.437 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri Murli Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M/s. Ahmed Law Firm, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs herein have filed a suit seeking the relief of possession of suit schedule property by demolishing the buildings, structures and also claimed damages at sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum for the illegal occupation of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 who is the owner of the plot No.52, and plaintiff No.2 is the owner of the plot No.53 of the suit schedule property said to have purchased the same from Sri Patha Pullaiah and Sri Tadepalli Sadashiv through registered sale deeds dated 15.12.1997 and 31.10.1998 vide document Nos.3370 of 1997 and 3522 of 1998 respectively. Those two plots originally belonged to Sri Maganti Rammohan Rao and others, they have sold the same and transferred the suit schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 11.11.1968 and 24.06.1968 vide document Nos.1420 of 1968 and 790 of 1968 respectively. The plaintiffs were residents of Bellampalli of Adilabad District and when they visited the suit plot, and found that a building was constructed in plot No.53 and in respect of plot No.52, a compound wall was raised over the open plot. The plaintiffs have got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 11.07.1999. The defendants instead of vacating the suit schedule property, have filed a caveat petition with oblique motive, with an intention to illegally occupy the property. As such the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking delivery of the possession and demolition of the existing structures over the suit schedule property.

4. The defendant has filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further denying his possession and also the ownership over the suit schedule property. In turn, the defendant claimed that he is the absolute owner of the plot Nos.52, 53/A and 53/B, totally admeasuring 600 Sq. yards in Sy.Nos.55 and 59 of Bandlaguda Jagir Village claiming that the same was purchased from one Smt. Annapurna through registered sale deed document Nos.35 of 1997 dated 06.01.1997 in respect of plot No.52 and further contended that their vendor had purchased the said property from one M. Rammohan Rao and Smt. Yelamanchili Usharani, who was represented by their GPA holder M. Rammohan Rao.

5. Further, the defendant has purchased the plot Nos.53/A and 53/B from Mohd. Hasan and Mohd. Abdul Rahman Khan under registered sale deed dated 07.04.1998. They have also sold the property of the plot No.53/A to Mohd. Hasan under the registered sale deed dated 09.06.1997 and plot No.53/B to Mohd. Hafeez under the registered sale deed on the same day, in turn sold the plot No.53/B to the vendor of the plaintiffs that Abdul Rahman under the registered sale deed dated 23.09.1997. It is further contended that the defendant, being a bonafide purchaser of plot Nos.52, 53/A, and 53/B obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction of the building and compound wall and the claim of defendant that he is the owner of the property and that plaintiffs are not in possession of the same and also they are not entitled for recovery of possession and the reliefs which are claimed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the said pleadings the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:

i. Whether the plaintif