JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.210 of 2002 on the file of the learned IX Additional Chief Court, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellants and Smt. Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed OS No.210 of 2002 seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction with respect to suit schedule property restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The contentions of the plaintiffs in the said suit are that the suit schedule property was gifted to the plaintiff’s husband under Ex.A26. Pursuant to the said gift deed, the plaintiff’s husband has become the absolute owner and that ever since the execution of the said gift deed, her husband has been in possession of the suit schedule property.

5. It is further contended that there exists a temple of Lord Hanuman on the suit schedule property and the same was constructed by one Sri. Raj Janardhan, out of his own funds and since the plaintiff’s husband was performing pooja in the temple located in the suit schedule property, the suit schedule property was gifted to him under Ex.A26.

6. It was further contended that plaintiff’s husband was permitted to construct a residential house in the suit schedule property. After the demise of plaintiff’s husband, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and further, the husband of the plaintiff during his lifetime filed an application before the then Tahsildar for transfer of the suit schedule property as his personal property and pursuant to such an application, a detailed enquiry was conducted and ultimately a Farman under Ex.A24 was issued recording that the suit schedule property was given to the husband of plaintiff for rendering of services. Ex.A24 only records that the suit schedule property was granted for Pooja Paat and for rendering services to the temple.

7. It was also contended that the husband of the plaintiff filed an application before Jagir Shivraj Bahadoor and pursuant to such application under Ex.A16, it was recorded that the temple situated in the suit schedule property is the private temple and that the husband of the plaintiff is entitled to reside and construct a house in the suit schedule property. It was further recorded that the suit schedule property was to be deleted as being reflected as poramboke land and classified as residential property under Ex.A16. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that she has been paying Municipal Tax, Non-Agricultural Land tax and has filed Exs.A3, A4, A5, A14 and A12 to A23 in support of such contention.

8. The defendants denied all the averments made by the plaintiff and contended that the suit schedule property was situated in Sy.No.105 of Ameerpet Village out of which an extent of Ac.0.06 gts is classified as Government Poramboke land as per the Revenue Records and the suit schedule property is recorded as Hanumandla Poramboke Sarkari.

9. It was further contended by the defendants that the Town Survey was conducted in the twin cities and a notification under Section 61 of Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 was issued calling for objections and as such no objection was ever received. Moreover, in the Town Survey conducted, the suit schedule property was recorded as G-temple and in the remarks column, it is recorded as Hanuman temple. A final notification was also issued with respect to the same in the Gazette No.34 dated 29.05.1976 and contended that the suit schedule property is the Government land.

10. It was specifically contended that as per Section 87 of Endowments Act