This Court delivered the following

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

As per the order dated 03.03.2026, Registry has sent notices through Special Messenger to serve on the respondents. They refused to receive the said notices. Refusal amounts to service. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

2. Heard Mr. Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M. Papa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

3. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant - plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.331 of 2002, by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.331 of 2002.

4. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the aforesaid suit.

(For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks in the suit).

5. Originally, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants to declare him as owner of premises bearing No.15-1-440, situated at Feelkhana, Hyderabad consisting of ground floor and first floor constructed on the land admeasuring 275 sq.yards (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’), recovery of possession of the first floor and damages for illegal use and occupation of the first floor of the suit schedule property.

6. The case of the plaintiff is that his parents had two sons and six daughters. He is the younger son and defendants are daughters. Mr. Eswararao Patange, is his elder brother. His father Mr. Krishnarao Patange was engaged in cloth trade, and money-lending business, and he acquired properties therefrom. As the plaintiff’s elder brother Mr. Eswararao Patange was mentally retarded, his father executed a Will on 10.7.1964 making provision to his wife (plaintiff’s mother), to Mr. Eswararao, and to the plaintiff, who was aged 11 years at that time. His father gave life interest to plaintiff’s mother in the suit schedule house with a right to let out and derive income, and gave vested remainder to the plaintiff. His father had dealt with some items of property covered by the Will. His father also created a Trust under a deed dated 22.01.1973 for the welfare of Mr. Eswara Rao. His father died on 01.11.1979. Thereafter, plaintiff’s mother enjoyed the house property till she died on 31.05.1999. After her demise, the plaintiff alone is entitled to the suit schedule property.

7. The 1st defendant is a Medical Practitioner and was in Iran from 1981 to 1987. After her return to Hyderabad, at the request of her mother, she was permitted to reside in the 1st floor of the suit schedule building. The 2nd defendant had dispute with her family members and came to Hyderabad in 1995. After the death of their mother, the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the first floor portion and make their own separate arrangements. Though the defendants were well aware that their mother merely had a life interest in the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff alone was the absolute owner of the same after death of their mother, they picked up quarrels and did not vacate the first floor of the said property and filed a suit in O.S.No.3980 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff confronted the defendants regarding the original will executed by their father during the cross-examination of defendants herein in O.S.No.3980 of 1999, but the defendants denied the same. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.

8. Denying the allegations in the plaint, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement and contended as follows:-

9. Their father received money from his father and maternal grandfather, and carried on the wholesale cloth business and the money lending business. Their father performed marriages of 4 daughters on a grand scale and presented valuable items of jewellery and articles to each of them. He s