The High Court · 2025

respondent-plaintiff has raised a shed in the site fo - the purpose of residence and the couple lived therein till she left I{.r lers6u6 ,o ro'r, her duties ro 1997 .

3.3. The appellant-defendant with a dishonest irL ention to grab the suit schedule property squatted over the prop( I ry and in spite of request he did not vacate the suit land and the , florts made by her with the help of Dr.N.S.D.Prasada Rao, p.Sriniy rsa Rao proved futile thereby the respondent-plaintiff got issued egal notice on t\ )- 4126 BRMR,J AS.No.9_202O

13.06.2007 to deiiver the possession and to pay damages for the use and occupation @ Rs.5,000 / - per month for which the appellant-defendant gave reply on 29.06.2OO7 with false averments stating that he perlected the title by way of adverse possession and further con[ended that the sale deed dated 26.1 1.1993 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff is forged and fabricated.

4. Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and contended that it is he who has purchased the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.37O/- per square yard, its extent is 266.66 square yards of land along with room from Sunil D. Thakar and Mahesh M. Thakar in the month of September, 1993 and paid an amount of Rs.27,000/ - or 27.O9.1993, also paid an amount of Rs.45,60O/- and Rs.26,889 l- by way of D.D. on

25. I I . 1993 and obtained possession and that he has constructed a residential house by raising cement brick walls, super structure with metal tubes and steel sheets and he is in possession of the property since 1993 till date. Respondent-plaintiff deserted the appellant-defendant in the month of November, 1997 aod subsequently never came back, due to paucit5r of funds the appellant-defendant could not get the Plot registered, that on

07.09.2001 he got issued legal notice to his vendors with a demand to execute the registered sale deed, as there was no response from sl26 BRMR,J 15.No.9 2020 his vendors the appellant-defendant has filed sur for specific performance in OS.No.345 of 2OO2 on the hle of t\i rcipal Junior Civil Judge (West & South) Ranga Reddy District an I obtained ex parte decree on 30.12.2OO2 and filed EP.No.23O of '.! )O4. obtained registered sale deed from the Court and that he ht; become the absolute owner of the propert5r, to his surprise, he re r eived the suit summons. Respondent-plaintiff is not in possessior rf the original sale deed and she filed the certihed copy. Responden -plaintiff with the help of Dr. N.S.D.Prasada Rao obtained forged r nd fabricated sale deed in her name and prayed to dismiss the surt

5. The follos-ing issues were framed by the learnr:,. trial Court

1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute o ner of suit schedule property by virtue of Regd. Sak' Deed dated 26.r1 1993 ? ^

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cielivery of possession of suit schedule propert'/ from the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recoverr of damages together with interest, if so to what amount )

4. To what relief)

6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW. I anJ also examined PW.2-N.S.D.Prasada Rao, got marked Exs.Al to A 8. Appellant- defendant is examined as DW. 1 and got marked l)xs.Bl to Bl7. I \ I BRMR,J AS.No.9 2020 q CW. 1-Mahesh M. Thakar is examined as a Court witness on behalf of respondent-plaintiff and got marked Ex.C1.

7. The learned trial Court afLer analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff holding that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directed the appellant- defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the same lr,ithin two months from the date of judgment (16. 10.2019) and also directed him to pay Rs.a,OOO/- per month for three years prior to till the date of suit, the mesne prohts from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession wiil be ascertained in separate application.

8.1. Learned counsel for the appeilant-defendant submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant- defendant has paid advance sale consideration of Rs.27,000/- by way of cash on 27.09.1993, again paid Rs.26,889/- by way of Demand Draft and Rs.45,600/- by way of cash on 25.1 1.1993 and the total sum paid is Rs.99,489/- towards sale consideration of the suit schedule property.

8.2. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the registration value of the property at the time of making payment t', I , BRMR,J n S.No.9 2020 sale consideration was Rs.SOO/- per square yard : nd the total comes to Rs.1,34,5OO/-, after negotiations the sale cor sideration is settled at Rs.99,a89/- and the learned trial C,r lrt erred in accepting the pleading of the respondent-plaintiff hat the suit schedule properly is purchased for Rs.26,889 / -. Tl r tearned trial Court misinterpreted the suggestions given by t I : appellant's counsel to the respondent-plaintiff.

8.3. The learned trial Court has proceeded in a prejudicial manner by accepting the version of the respondr:rr -plaintiff and ignore d the submissions of the appellant-defenda r t. The pass book entries of the responden t-ptaintiff u,ere altet:d at several places and such entries are fabricated and forged i nd also erred that the respondent- plaintiff is not a party to the ; rit for specific pefformance. The findings of the learned trial Coui that Ex.Al is prior in point of time rvith that of the sale dee: of appellant- defendant and that CW.1 has not come forward to ( ppose the suit filed by the appellant-defendant lor specific perlc -mance which came to be decreed and sale deed came to be : lccuted in his favour. lThe leamed trial Court failed to see thar the appellalt- the suit schedule defenda J, i" ,., continuous possession of property and is in adverse possession of the same r 8126 BRMR.J AS.No.9 2020

8.4. The observation of the learned trial Court that respondent- plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title as per Section l4(1) of Hindu Succession Act. In fact, Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the case on hand. The Iearned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the evidence of PW.2 and CW. i is not trust worthy and ought to have held that the appellant-defendant has discharged his burden by proving the payment of sale consideration to the GPA holder of lhe original property owner. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in thc casc of (1) Balkrishan Vs. Satyaprakash and Othersl, (2) Des Raj and Others Vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs and Othersz.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly decreed the suit as prayed for, no interference is called for and in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Prem Nath Khanna and Others Vs. Narinder Nath Kapoor (Dead) Through LRs and Others3, (2) Jai Kishan and Others Vs. Sardari La[ and Othersa , (3) K.B. Bhandari Vs. Laxyman Limboos. I 1 2oo1 (z) scc 498 'z Appeal (Civil)r5845 of 2000 dated ZO.O2.2OO7 of the Supreme Court of India I AIR 2016 sc 1433 4 AIR 2015 Himachal pradesh 93 s AIR 2017 sikkim 37 I 9126 BRMR,J AS.No.9 2020

10. Learned counsel on record have hled .l eir written submissions in support of their contentions

11. Ileard leartrcd counsel on record, perused the rr Lterial

12. Now the point for considerarion is : Whether r :re judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.N > 744 of 2OO7, dated 16.1O.2O\9 suffers from any perversity or il t qality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?

13. Ex.Ai is the Certilred Copy of Regrstered Sal Deed dated

26.11.1993 executed by Sri Sunil D. Thacker repr,: ented by his GPA holder Sri Mahesh M.Thakar in favour of Ll.r respondent- plaintiff. The recitals goes to show that the total sal,: :onsideration . the propertjr is Rs.26,889i - which is g aid through D.D.No.766288 dated 25.1I.1993. The schedule of 1 re property is House bearing Municipal No.4-724 l1 (Part) Old No.z.. )6/29 on Plot No.46 in Survey No.331 to 334, admeasuring 269 s,< uare yards or equivalent to 224.88 square metres, situated at Mrr ,s2p61 Village, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga leddy District with boundaries. E.A17 is the original Registered S,i le Deed of the suit schedule propert5r. Exs.AS to A8 are Properr Tax Receipts dated 26.70.2006, 14.10.2005, 05.09.2007, 31.05.2 )08 pertaining to H.No.l2-4-1241 | and the remitters name is shown as \ \ r tol26 BRMR,J AS.No.9_2020 M.Annapurna (respondent-plaintiff). Ex.A9 is the Carbon Copy of Cash Receipt issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation dated 30.05.2009 pertaining to plaint schedule property. Exs.A10 and A1 1 are Encumbrance Certihcates dated 74.O7.2OO4 and

28.12.2005 for the period from 24.O3.1gg4 to 13.07.20O4 and

24.O3.1994 to 27.12.2OO5. Ex.A12 is the Letter issued by Divisional Engineer, Electricity Operation Division, Kukatpally addressed to the respondent-plaintiff dated 19.07 .2008 and the letter goes to sho$, that the information asked is already sent. Ex.A13 is thc information lurnished to the respondent-plaintiff which shows that thc service connection No.220O5 02602 stands in the name of M.Annapurna (respondent-plaintiff). Exs.A14 and A15 are the Property Tax Receipts in respect of the suit schedule property dated 07.ll.2OO4 and 29.01.2006. Ex.A16 is the Attested copy of the Pass Book of the respondent-plaintiff and Ex.A18 is the original Bank Pass Book.

14. Respondent-plaintiff has got issued a legal notice to the appellant-defendant on 13.06.2OOT stating that she has obtained the suit schedule property under registered sale deed on

26.ll.lgg3 and further stated that the appellant-defendant is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and she has been requesting repeatedly through elders to vacate and deliver the lU26 BRMR,J AS.No.9_2o20 possession to her as she is the absolute owner ther: ,l and called upon to vacate the premises and deliver possession r,. rhin 15 days of receipt of notice bcsides paying damages for use a J occupation (ii Rs.5,000/- per month totally to Rs.1,80,0OO/- l') a statutory period of three years for unauthorized occupiL ir>n (Ex.A2). Appellant-defendant has got issued a reply under )x.A4 stating that he has purchased the suit schedule property irr the month of September 1993 b1, paying valuable sale cons r leration and possession was delivered to him on 25.lI.lt )3, he has immediately constructed the house on the said lanc rnd has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession tiil r a te and also obtained a valid conveyance deed'io the said pr. lerty and he possesses original receipts of payment and he i; living in the schedule property as a true owner since 25.11.19!l and the sale deed of the respondent-plaintiff dated 26. 11.1993 l. )x.A1lEx.A17) is a fabricated document which is obtained bv fraud.

15. The witnesses to Ex.Al/Ex.Al7 are Dr.N.S lr.Prasada Rao and Eshwara Chandradar.

16. 1 . Appellant-defendant and respondent-plainti [: are husband and wife, their marriage was performed on 02.06. 1r) )0 at Vuyyuru, Krishna District according to Hindu Rites and Cus:oms and they lived at Hyderabad till November, 1997 and they ar ( blessed rviltr a \ 1\ I 12126 BRMR,J AS.No.9 2020 son by name Siddhartha, aged 6 Yz years by the date of hiing of O.P. for divorce on the ground of cruelty and deserLion under Ex.B 1. Respondent-plaintiff secured a Government Job and she was posted as Circlc Inspector, Excise and Prohibition after training in Yanam and she u,orked there till October, 1998 and thereafter transferred to Prattipadu, East Godavari District. Respondent-Plaintiff stated in Ex.B 1 that the appellant-defendant pressurized her to dispose of Ac.O 1-O0 gts of land and give the sale proceeds to him. When the sale proceeds was received by the respondent plaintiff by Bank Account transfer, site at Moosapet was purchased, though the site was purchased by the respondent- plaintiff with her amount the appellant-defendant made a trick of converting her amount into D.D. in his name and paid the amount as if the amount belongs to him.

16.2. Ex.B2 is the sale deed of the appellant-defendant dated ll.02.2006 which is executed by Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad on behalf of Sri Sunil D.Thakar, Sri Mahesh M. Thakar in favour of appellant-defendant in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.345 of 2OO2 dated, 3O.12.2OO2 and EP.No.23O of 2004 in respect of the suit schedule property. The schedule property covered in Exs.A1/A17 and Ex.B2 are one and the same. Ex.B2 catne p be I t3126 BRMR,J AS No.9 2020 executed through Court after thirteen years of :xecution of Exs.Al/A17. Ex.B3 is the Receipt issued in r vour of the appellant-defendant by Mahesh M. Thakar dated 25. ) ). 1993 for an amount of Rs.27,000/- as advancc lor Plot No.4,-r rl- Ilouse r,Jo. 4-96/29 in Survey Nos.331 to 334 situated at Mo;;apet Vil)age. Ex.E}4 is another Receipt dated 25.11.1993 issL ed by Sunil D.Thakar for Rs.45,600/- in favour of the appellar.r -defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Exs.BS to B7 rre Municipal Tax Receipts in favour of the appellant-de r rdant cia.ted

17.06.2006, 14.06.2OO7 , 06.08.2008 in respec. of the suit schedule property. Ex.B8 is the Counterfoil date<l I 5.1 1.20O3 for an amount of Rs.26,956/- favouring Sunil D. Tha < Lr. Exs.B9 to 814 are Electricity Bills in respect of the suit sr:lr clule property standing in the name of appellant-defendant u,hicl' rere issued in the years 2006 and 2OO7. Ex.B15 is the Tax Receip s for the years 2OO9 to 2Ot2 in respect of the plaint schedule pr( I eri)_. stands in the name of appellant-defendant. Ex.B 16 is the EL:, tricity Bills for the years 2015 to 2019 and Ex.Bt7 is the Mutation lertrficate. 17 . Appellant-defendant has hled suit for specih<; oerformance of Contract in OS.No.345 of 2OO2 against Sunil D. '[ rakar, Mahesh M. Thakar i.e., after nine years of execution of E); s.A L arrd AIZ. E.P. is lrled in the year 2OO4 and Ex.B2-sale flee: aS cxecuted in \ \ I 14126 BRMR,J AS.No.9-202O his favour on 04 .02.2006 but document is executed on la.O2.2OO6. Appellant-defendant has got issued reply notice to Ex.A2 under trx.A4. trx.A4 does not have the date but he has not referred about the execution of sale deed in his favour by the Court on ll.02.2006 when trx.A2 legal notice came to be issued on

13.06.2007. The appellant-defendant for the best reasons known to him has not stated anything about issuance of legal notice by him on 07 .O9.2OO| to his vendors except stating that he obtained valid conveyance deed.

18.1. The evidence of responden t-plaintiff as PW. 1 is the same with that of plaint averments. In her cross-ex4mination she stated that in the month of December 1996, she was selected as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in Group ll Services and on

05.12.1996 she joined at A.P. Excise Academy at Hyderabad and she never lived with the appellant-defendant at Hyderabad after she obtained divorce on O7.01.20O2 and she received a legal notice got issued by the appellant-defendant dated 02.06.2OOl but she did not give any reply and she took charge as Excise lnspector in the month of November, 1997. From 1991 to 1996 October, she worked as part-time L€cturer at Government Junior Coilege for Girls at Hussainialam, Hyderabad and BJR Government College at Lakdikapui and used to get salary of Rs.2,800/- pZ month and ,1 / r.t rsl26 B R\,( R,J AS.No.9 2020 Ex.P16 does not reflect the amounts in the Bank ,/\ col'lnt. She was provided with Acs.99-OO gts of land at Uppaluru /illage at the time of her marriagc and Rs.3O,O00/- was given zLs 1owry to the appcllanL-defcnda nt. A sum of Rs.70,015-82 Paisa rr: s translerrcd on 26.08.1992 to her saving account in Andhra I3rr Lk, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. An amount of Rs.5O,000/- wzLs vithdrawn by her on 26.08.1992 uide cheque No.794 and anot'r 'r amount of Rs.5O,OO0/- t,as u.ithdrawn by the appellant-cr lendant uide cheque No.795. On 02.11.1993 a sum of Rs l0,5O4l and Rs.5O,504/- u'ere transferred to the account unclcr Ex.A16 from her Frxed deposit and on 13. 09. 1993 there .,r,a:; rL balan<:e of Rs.6,89O.60 Paisa tr her saving account. A sum r i Rs.55,1a7/- was deposited in the account on 02.06.1993 by ri t.i of Demand Draft. On 13.09.1993 a sum of Rs.50,O0O/^ $'as rvi hdrawn. Upto 8rl. November, the amounts were withdrawn and wer r kept in Frxed deposit, the amounts were finally withdrawn by ,he appellant- defendant on O8- 11.1993 through cheque No.799, :Lr :he defendant (appellant herein) requested for expenses an( developrnent charges, she issued a cheque in his favour or a sum of Rs. I,OO,000/- though the sale consideration un ler Ex.A1/A17 was for Rs.26,889/-. f 76125 BRMR,J AS.No.g 2020

18.2. Respondent-plaintiff denied the suggestion that appellant- defendant has paid Rs.27,000/- on 25.09.1993 and obtained a receipl from the GPA holder Mahesh M. Thakar after entering into an agreement to purchase it (i 37Ol- per square yard and he also paid Rs.46,500/- on 25.I1.1993 to the owner Sunil M. Thakar and obtained receipt, as they did not execute the sale deed the appellant-defendant has filed OS.No.345 of 2OO2 and sale deed is executed by the Court in his favour on 11.02.2006. Till 20O6, her name is recorded in the Municipal Records and she do not know in whose name the property stands after 2006. Ex.A9 is dated

03.05.2009 and she paid the tax thinking that the property still continues in her name. Respondent-plaintiff denied the suggestion that Exs.A1, A5 to A8, A13 to A15 are fabricated documents to suit her claim and also denied the suggestion that the description, boundaries and the schedule mentioned in Ex.A l7 are incorrect and the same is a fabricated document. The address mentioned in Ex.A17 is 4-l2O/2, Sri Hari Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad and the same address is shown in the 1st witness to the said document (Dr.Prasada Rao). She has not fi1ed the GPA executed by Sunil D. Thakar in favour of Mahesh M. Thakar and Ex.A7 was registered on 09.12.1993. L7 /26 BRMR,J AS.No.9 2020

19.1. PW2-N.S.D. Prasada Rao deposed that he kno,r s the parties to the suit and respondent-plaintiff is his cous rr, she has purchased the suit schedule property on 26.11.1993 :om Sunil D_ Thakar through his (iPA holdcr Mahesh M. Thakal r a toral sale consideration of Rs.26,889/-, the sale deed was ,xecuted and presented for registration on the same day i.e., on 12rr 1 1. 1993. On 09 .12.7993 it was re gistered at District Registrar )fhce, Ranga Reddy District and he was present at that t ote. Mahesh M. Thakar, GPA holder of Sunil D. Thakar execur(( sale deeci in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and he signed as , rtestor to the said document and he identified his signature in Ex.l 17.

19.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he \ e.s present at the time of payment of consideration shown in the ;ale deed and hc cannot give the cxact datc of the presentation ot rie sale deed for registration and the address given by him in rL: sale deed is permanent one, since the plaintiff (respondent I t rein) and her husband (appellant herein) are employees, for c rrrespondcnce purpose they use his permanent address and thc sale deed was executed by Mahesh M. Thakar as a GpA I older, to his remembrance the original owners of the land are he relatives of Mahesh M. Thakar. After presentation of the document for verification of the Door number it was kepj pendinS rrnd he signed .\ \\ 7 t8126 BRMR.J AS.No.9 2020 on the document on the date of registration. Witness adds that at the time of registration his signatures were obtained in the Register. PW,2 denied the suggesrion that Ex-A17 was not executed by Mahesh M.Thakar.

20. 1. Respondent-plaintiff has summoned Mahesh M. Thakar to give evidence on her side. 2O.2. Mahesh M. Thakar is examined as Court u,itness-CW.1 on 2a.O9.2OlO. His evidence is that he knot,s the plaintiff (resporrdent herein) through Dr.Prasad. Sunil D. Thakar is his uncle s brother, he has executed a regislered GPA in his favour. Plaintiff (respondent herein) has purchased the property under Ex.A17 registered sale deed which contains his signature. He has received the entire sale consideration and delivered the possession. He has given a letter to Kukatpally Municipality for mutation of the property, the total extent is 266 square yards, by the date of Ex.A17 there was a small structure with Asbestos sheets roof. 2O.3. Cross-examination of the said witness is recorded as NIL by the learned trial court on 28.09.2O1O. Witness lr,as recalled as per the orders in IA.No. 762 ol 2019, dated 28.06.2019 for cross- examination by appellant-defendant after a period of 9 years. In his cross-examination he stated that Sunil Trh,akar is not in '-/ t9126 BRJ\f R,J AS.No 9 2020 Hyderabad but his elder brother is having office. V: idee and her husband came to purchase the propert5r directll without any mediators and he do not remember the price qrr, ted by ltim. Signature ai,:ul:rblc on Ex.82, ur.rder r,",hich he tas recci,. r'd advance from appellant-defcndant and he cannc t identify rhe signature of Sunil Thakar, he cannot produce GP.1 since it u'as executed long back and its availability is doubtful. F[, do not know that on the date of Ex.A1, the vendee and her hus cand were at logger heads. So also he do not know the attester of F x.At by name Prasada Rao who is the brother of the vendee and .I receivecl the consideration under Ex.Al by way of D.D. besid:; the amount mentioned in Ex.B2 and he do not remember that the D.D. u.as given by the defcndant only. CW. I denied the suge :stion thar he received the consideration from the appellant < efendant but executed the document in favour of the vendet (respondent- plaintif| that himself, vendee and her brother Pr-; sada Rao are deposing false to defeat the rights of the defen: rnt (appellant herein) and he do not know that subsequent to F,) .A1. the same property was registered once again by the Court.

20.4. No suggestion is put to CW. 1 that the app,: lant-defendant has purchased the suit schedule property for a sal , consideration of Rs.370/ per square yard for the total ex)d.nt ol 266.66 square \ 20126 BRMR,J AS No.g 2020 yards from Sunil D. Thal<ar and he was delivered physical possession of the property on 25.1 1. 1993 2I. The evidence ol rhe appellant-defendant is the same with that of his written stalement. In his cross-examination he stated that there u,ere small misunderstandings be tween him and his r,r'ifc and there were no serious disputes or differences till decree of divorce was passed in the year 2OO2. Tlll 1997, both of them lived under one roof and he did not contest the divorce petitioll and he has no knowledge about the execution of sale deed in favour of lhe re spondcn t- plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property till she liled the suit and he-, firled OS.No.345 of 2OO2 for specific performance of contract against his wife during the pendency of OP.No.262 of 200 I and he obtained agreement of sale from Sunil Thakar who is D2 in OS.No.345 of 2OO2 and he do not know that respondent-plainliff became absolute owner of the suit schedule property by the date of hling OS.No.345 of 2OO2. Except Exs.B2, 83 and 87 there is no separate written agreement in his favour with the original owners. The amount under Exs.B2 and 87 were directly given to Mr. Sunil Thakar whereas tJ e amount under Ex.B3 was given to the GPA holder by name Mahesh. Witness adds that amount under Ex.B2 was given to the GPA holder by name Mahesh and the amount under Ex.B3 was given to Mr. Sunil and ' f '-"=" 2U26 BR Ii{R,J 1S.No.9 202o he got knowledge by then itself that Mr. Mahesh .r a registered GPA holder of Mr. Sunil and he received legal nc -ice from the respondent-plaintifl, got issued Ex.A4 reply and ther: is no recital that he has pleviousll pr-rrchased the suit schedu I : property and got it registered in his name. Prior to mutation of hi;name in the Municipal Records, the name of one Annapoorna u.i s recordecl in the Municipal Records and in Electricity Departrr:nt, he is in possession of the suit property as of now and he I rs given it on rent which is fetching Rs.3000/- to 4OOOI- per mo rrh. Ex.C1 is the copy of the order in CMA No_ 1059 of 2OOg of rl e High Court, dated 2 1 . 12.?,OO9 to dispose of the suit withi I a periocl of 6 months from the date of receipt oi copy of the o-,.er. Appellant- defendant denied the suggestion that in the year I O06 itself, the name of the re sponden t- plain tiff is mutated in )re Municipal Records by the date of hling OS.No.345 ot 2OO2 an<[ he also denied the suggestion that Annapurna is no other th I I respondent- plaintiff who is his divorced wife.

22.7. In Balkrishnanl, the Supreme Court held lhat "A person claiming title by adr.erse possession has to prove thr:e nec - nec vi, nec clam and nec precario. In other words, he mus. show that his possession is adequate in continuit5r in publicity urd in extent". In the said case, plaintifl's adverse possessiog ct nmenced from .\\ \ r 22126 T}RMR.J AS No.9_2020

04.09.1973 and the period of 12 years completed on O4.O9.1985 before the purchase of the suit land by the respondents therein on 1 1. 12. 1985 and the suit r,r.'as filed on December 6, 1986. The rclirre, tl-re appellant defendant therein has perfected his titled by adverse possession.

22.2. ln Des Raj2, the Supreme Court observed that "The principle of lau, is hrmly established that a person who bases his titie on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denia.l of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his properqy''.

23. It is the case of the appellant-defendant that the plot was purchased by him for a sale consideration of Rs.370/- per square yard to an extent of 266.66 square yards along with a room bearing House number from Sunil D. Thakar and physical possession was delivered to him on 25.1 1.1993. Except the oral testimony of the appellant-defendant there is no evidence placed by him that he has ,," "r/ 23126 BRMR.J AS No.9 2020 purchased the suit schedule property from Sunil D.'l rakar leaving apart Ex.B2. Another defense taken by the appe1lar1 defendant is that he is in adverse possession of the suit schedulc I roperry since 1993. Ex.84 is the cash receipt dated 2S.11.19( i u.irich onLy states that Sunil D. Thakar has received an amoun'! : -Rs.45,600/- . The adverse possession claimed by the appellant-<1,: endant is not proved by way of any evidence much less eithe. bv oral or documentary evidence. The decisions cited by tl e. appellant,s counsel stated supra are disringuishable from tl:t facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases woul : not apply ro the case on hand.

24.I. ln Prem Nath Khanna3, the point fell for consr< eration before the Supreme Court is "whether the plea taken l:,, the deceased respondent No.1-delendant No. 1 being in possess c n as a lessee could claim the alternate plea of adverse possess r n vice versa,. The Supreme Court held that respondent No. 1 L.i s no right to claim ownership over the suit property on the grcr nd of adverse possession by taking a plea of sham transaction".

24.2. In Jai Kishana, the High Court of HimachzL. pradesh held that 'Plea of ownership and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent pleas, adverse possession cannot b: ;in to operate until ownership is renounced'. \ l l 7 24126 BRMR,J AS.No.9_2020

24.3. In K.B. Bhandaris, the High Court of Sikkim held that "Claim based on title and on adverse possession mutually inconsistent - The concept ofadverse possession is in opposition to a claim under title, ts'o claims cannot either be parallel or simultaneous".

25. The appellant-defendant at one breath stated that he is the owner of the suit schedule properfy and the possession was delivered to him on 25. 1 1. 1993 and also became owner of the schedule propert\. under Ex. B2-sale deed and he failed to prove the

26. The decision cited by the responde nt-plaintiffs counsel i-n Prem Nath Khanna3, Jai Kishana and K.B.Bhandaris are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 27 . The evidence of CW. 1 is germane to decide the lis. The appellant-defendant has contended that he has paid an amount of Rs.27,0O0/- under Ex.83 to CW.1. Exs.A1/A17 goes to show that CW. 1 was having a registered GPA in his favour executed by Sunil D. Thakar uide GPA No.2213 of 1993, Book 4, Volume 215, Pages 481 to 484, dated 08.11.1993 registered at R.O., R.R. District. Exs.A16 and Ai8 are the Pass Books of the respondent-plaintiff which shows the amounts of deposits and withdrawal. Exs.AS to A8 are lhe Property Tax Receipts from the years 2005 to 2008 with 2s/26 BRilR,J \S No.9 2020 that of the receipts issued by GHMC under Ex.A9. .I.ir, letter issued by Divisional Engineer, Electricity Department und: . Ex.A12 and Propert5r Tax Receipts under Exs.Al4 and A15 goe ; to show that after the execution ol sale deed in favour of respo.rlenl-plairrtrfl under Exs.A 1 and A 17 property is mutated r hcr name. Furthermore, CW. t has also stated that he has giv,: ) lerter to the concerned Department for mutation of lhe name, i: r pursuance of execution of Exs.Al/A17- saie deed. Ex.B5-propertv Iax Receipt is after Ex.A6-Property Tax receipt dated 14.1O.2005. I te documents frled by the appellant-defendan t are no[ much heilr:l tLt his <:ase and the admission made by the appellant-defendan t that he made the respondent-plaintiff as defendant No.1 in the s.r t hled by him for specifrc performance of contract which goes to slr. ,rv titat he has knowledge of Exs.A1 and A17 sale deed. Furtherrnr re, ite has not stated in Ex.A4-reply notice that the sale deed is : <ecuted in his name by the Court under Ex.B2 on 17.02.2006 exce pt statin€j he has a conveyance deed. Appellant-defendant )t rs suppressed the material facts and he has not made out any ( z se to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court.

28. The learned trial Court has elaborate\ liscussecl the contentions raised by the parties and rightly d : ;reed the suit holding that the respondent-plaintiff is the absoru t : orvner of rhe ii_--, 7 26126 BRMR,J AS.No.9_2020 suit schedule property and that she is entitled for delivery of possession and directed the appeliant-defendant to vacate the sarne within 2 months from the date of judgment (16.1O.2019) and further directed to pal' Rs.4,000/- per month for 3 years prior to ti1l the date of the suit.

29. This Court is of the view that the appellant-defendant has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court, no in te rfercnce is callcd for and the point is answered accordingly.

30. In view ol the discussions above, Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 3 I . In the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs Interim Orders if anv stands vacated. Miscellaneous application / s stands closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR The llAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (With Records) One CC to Sri M.Satyan aravana. Advocate (OPUC) One CC to Sri Nava Mohan'Rao, Advocate (OpUCj Two CD Copies /PR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J .4 A/. HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 ..,: l,,U' ,\ j.-- i)a : ::-- : , : i;i .: >-\ - ,. (,i(.,. 02 !i? t026 () JUDGMENT AS.No.9 of 2020 t. ,/ ,,,,.1 * .li . .,'-i Dismissing the Appeal Suit Without costs. A U4A q 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: I OF 2020 Between: Maganti Ramana Kumar, S/o Narsimha Rao, Aged 60 years Rlo 12-4-12411, Pragathi Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/DEFENOANT Nimmagadda Annapurna D/o Subba Rao, R/o.LlC Agent Vuyuru(post) Krishna Dist 521165 ..RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal U/s 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.744 ol 2007 dated 16.10.2019 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Satyan aayana for the Appellant and of Sri Nava Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows . I . That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. /ffRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies v HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 DECREE AS.No.9 oI 2020 Dismissing the Appeal Suit Without costs. 1/