The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESII BHEEMAPAXA CCCA No. 231 OF 1999 JUDG MENT: Aggrieved by the decree and judgmer-rt in t).S. No. 527 of 1989 on the file of the V Senior Civil Juclge, Cit1, Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 23.O8.1999, Ll-rc unsuccessful defendants preferred this Appeal.

3. Parties are refcrred to as arral,ed iu the suit. Undisputed facts are as follor,r,s: One Mohd. Abdulla rnas the originai or.r,ner o[ the suit plot bearing No. 15 admeasuring 260 Square yards and other plots in Survey No. 7 of Abduilah Layout, padmaraonagar, Secundcrabad, under sanctioned layout uide perrnit No. 259/El1960 61, dated 12.09.196O. He diecl on 29.OI.tg64 leaving behind him vast properties, his mother Sakina Bee, first wife Ameena Bec, one daughter through her by name Razia Begum, second u.ife Jubeda Begum and three sons and three daughters through her. Sakina Bee through her GpA I-loldcr MA Habib lrled OS No. 20 of 1967 on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Sccunderabad, against the wives and children of Mohd. Abdulla for administering the estate o[ tl-re deceascd; determination of her share and separate possession thereon. .) i \. t i I I 2 \ Jubeda Bee , ttre second q'ife hled IA No' 1139 ol 1968 uncler Order 32 Rultr 15 ancl Rule 4 read g'ith Scction 151 CPC lor appointmer't:,l ncxt lricncl or court guardian on the ground that Sakina Bec , r; of unsound mind The Court' b-v- order date d

25.O3.1969,hcldthartsir-rceSakinaBeeisunabletoprotcctthe properties b,rcause of menlal infirmity; she should bc rcpresentecl ll1' the next friencl The said suit u'as dismissed on \O.O7.lg7c' ali settled out ol court sakina Bee dicd rn 1972' Ui A. Habceb, GPA Holder of Sakina Bee filed OS 3- 1. No. 313 r't' 1972 on lhe Lilc of thc V Asst Judge' Citv Civil Courts, I lv<lc rzrbad, against Jube da Bee and others for perpetual injttnctiot-t in respect of the propertv including the prcsent sr-Lil scheclltlc propcrlJ'' During pendency of the said surt, M.A. FaLr:cd clied and his Legal Representatives prosccutcd the suit. The learnecl Judge, by order dated lO 03 lt'77 returnecl the, plaint for u'ernt ol pecl-niary jurisdiction Hou'ever' the plaint $ ils rloL rc prcseuLed .Iubeda Bee and others f iled OS No. 353 o. 1980 (rcnumbcred as OS No' 455 of 1983) on the ' file of the Attdl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad' against the Legal Represcl'r Latives of MA Habib secking declaration <if trvo gift deeds dated 08 11 1971 and 09 11 1971 alleged to have been executecl in favour of MA Habeeb by Sakina l t t ,, I I t ; I ,. .,i *- $ E . , I 3 Bee as void and not binding on plaintiffs and for perpetual injunction. Thc lcarned Judge holding that the said gift deeds arc vitiated by undue influence, dismissed the suit since reliel of possession is not sought, by judgment dated 24.O3. 1988.

3.2. Ameena Bee, the first wife o[ late Md. Abdulla and her daughter filcd OS No. 101 of 1976 against Jubeda Bee and her children lor partition. The suit ended in comprornise and .Jubeda I3ee and children were given some properties includtng thc suit schedule properties. Plaintiff purchased the srrit schedule propcrty by a rcgistered sale deed dated 1O.O4.1978 from Jubeda Bee and her children. The l"tdefendant obtained registered sale deed dated 25.O3. 1977 rn respect of same suit schedule property and filed OS No. 1515 of 1978 on the file of the I Assis[ant Judge, City Civil Courts, Secundcrabad lor perpetual injunction against plaintiff and obtained decree on

22.07.1942. AS No. 388 of 1982 and the Second Appcal preferred by plaintiff rvere dismissed on 18.07.1983 and

22.O(:). 1qA4, respecl ively.

3.3. The 2"d defendant obtained a registered sale decd dated 18.08.1988 from the lst defendant in respcct of a portion of the suit schedule property in an extent of 13O Sq.Yds. ) ) { f I .+ ()n behalf of plaintiffs, PWs' 1 to 3 and on behall ol 4. clefcndernts, l-rWs. 1 Lo 5 u'erc examined Exs A I to A 24 and Exs- B- i Lo R .13 s'ere rnarked otr thcir rcspeclivc hr:hall' 'l'l e Tnal Courr rightlv opined that the entire 5. contro\rcrs\.r l'tlates to the title revolves around thc' question as to u'ho arn().tq Sakeena Bce, mother of the oliginal owner Abdulla or the sccotrd wife ar-rc1 children of lhc said Abdulla succcccl tl-re suit scheclule propert\-. 'lhe Trial Court held th:rt thereisacirtlseolactiontoinstilutethesuit;r'aluationand courl fec pzLirl arc sufficicnt; and lhe suit ls not barrcd b1' limitation.'l' t:se hndings are lrot disputed' 'l'l-re Trial Court in its rvell considered judgment

6. evaluating tlr: r'oluminous cvidcnce oral and documenlary' decreect th€ suit. PW-1 dcposed about purchase of suiL schcdulc property from Jubeda Bee and her children under Ex.A I , u,hic:.t r.l,a s devolved to her by vrrtue of comprotnise decrce in (lsl No. LO 1 of 1976. Evidence of PWs l and 2 coupled u.ith recir,a r; of Ex.A 1 and rerms and conditions of the compromise lEx.A-22) go to establish that subsecluent to death of Md. Abdrrllah and his mother Sakina Bee, remaining legal representtti\',: s of original ou'ner affected compromise and in the "_cortprc,rnise, suiL schedule property fell to the share of , I ,r,/ -, I 5 Jubeda Bee and hcr children from whom it was purchased undcr Ex.A I . Ex.A 1 was attacked on the grounds of insufficiency of consideration; absencc of delivery of possession; and Sakina Bee or her lcgal represcntatives are not parties to the said compromise. Md. Abdulla died in 1964 and his moLher Sakia Bee died in 1972.Then the hrst wife of Abdulla and daughter Iiled OS No. 1O 1 of 1976 against the second wife and children of Abdulla, which ended in compromise. Hence adding of Sakina Bee, who is no more by that time, to the compromise does not arise. Furthcr OS No. 101 of 1976 is between the remaining Legal Representatives of the deceased original owner; compromise under trx.A22 is therefore, a valid one. It is settled law that plea of no consideration or sufficiency of consideration is not available to a stranger. Hence this ground of atlack was turned down. So also as per Clause-3 of Ex. A1 sale deed, there is implied delivery of possession. The fact of plaintiff obtaining sanctioned plan permit from the Municipal Corporation for construction under Ex.A2 dated 11.5.1978 itself is proof of delivery of possession.

7. The lst defendant claims title to the suit schedule property under Ex. B-1 sale deed 25.03.1977 purchased from Sajida Begum. On the strength of this, he filed OS No. 1515 of ) j i { I I I 6 1978 ancl obiatned temporary injunction Under the guisc of this injunction, hc forcibly cntered into the suit schedule land and disposs,es;;ccl plarr-rti[l Recitals of Er-B- I do not disclose the source of title to its vcnclor' It is their case lhat Sakina Begum got the sui: s:hcdule propert]' to hcr share and she gitted the same under IDx B 3 registerccl gift decd datcd O9 1 1' 197 1 trr M.A. Habetb. .'rho sold iL to Sajicla Bcgurn undcr Ex'B 2 dated

15. 1 1. r985. hs statecl above, Sakina Bce through her GPA 8. Holder MA I'labecb hlecl OS No 20 of 1967 on the file of the I Addl. Chiel' - :c1ge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad against the u'ives and c:ildren of Mohd. Abdulta for administering the estate of ttre Jeceasecl; determination o[ hcr sharc and scparate possession thereon. Jubeda Bee, the second u'ife filed lA No' 1139 of 1(16ll under Order 32 Rule 15 and Rrrlr: 4 read wrth Section 1rl1 CPC for appointment of next friend or court guardian on l.hc ground that Sakina Bee is of utlsound mind' The Court bv order datecl 25.O3 1969 held that since Sakina Bee is unabie to protect lhe properties bccause of mental inhrmity, shc should be reprcsented by her next friend" The said suit was dr;missed on 1O-07.1970 as settled out of court' Therefore, tlLc Court belou' held that the so-called gift deed is ,1 t 7 not a valid one. Further in OS No.353 of 198O (renumbered as OS No. 455 of 1983) filed bv the vendors of thc plaintiff, the Court held that there was no earlier partition and evcn if there \ ras a parti.tion, it u'as void and that gift deeds including Ex. B 3 is vitiated by undue influence. In view of the tindings of Lhe Court in OS No. 455 of 1983 that gilt deeds including trx. B-3 are vitiated by undue influence, ri.,hich became final, the said M.A. t{abeeb hacl no right, title or interest in the suit schedule propcrty to convLJ the same to Sa jida Begum, vendor of the 1 st defenclant.

9. In the result, the trial court decreed Lhe suit declaring the ou,nership and title of piaintiff over the suit schedulc property and directed defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property wi thin the time frame hxed.

10. This Appeal is hlcd on the following grounds: i) the courl belor.r, erred in appreciating Lhe pleadings and evidence; ii) it failed to notice the factual and legal infirmities in the case t of the plaintiff; 1 8 \ I iii) it failed t{) appreciate that the findings in OS No 1515 of 1978 cannot hc reopened as t hey alc barrcd [-r' principle of res judicata: iv) it con-rmitt:tl crror in construtng and ir-rtcrprcting trx-A 19; v) it failcd to .,ppreciatc the provisions o[ Order 32 Rule 15 CPC; vi) it faiied to appreciatc E x.l322 dated 09 07 1970 executed by Sakina Begurl't. Jubeda Bcgum and her children; r,ii)itcrreditrconstruingthatdismissalofOsNo,2ooll96Tir.r tcrms of se ttl]mcnt outside thc court is not a proof that Sakina Begum got ai:]i part of the suit schedulcd propcrtr ; viii) it commiLrcd error in apprcciating Lhat evcn in thc absence of OS No. t29 1967, as th.e mother of the deceascd Sakina Begum was ,:r'rtitled to 1/6th share in the Matnlka under the Muslim Law. ix) it erred in thinking that therc is no fir-rality to t he findings in OS No. zl55 of 1983 in vier.r' ol the lact that the said suil is only dismissed: x) it failed t,: appreciate that \t'hen the said suil t'as dismissed the hndinlls r,r,ould have no valuc; xi) it fai1e,1 to look that irrespective of result of oS No 313 of 19V2, pre-er:isting title of MA Habeeb and his successors are in no way af1-ected; I J t I 9 xii) it erred in holding that since the suit was hled after the death of Sakina Begum, it was not nece ssary to implead anybody as a party on her behalf; xiii) it crred in holding that vendors'vendor and its vendor has no right, title and interest in the properLy; xiv) it erred in holding that because of clismissal of OS No. 45S of 1983, the findings therein are binding tlrough the defendant was not a party; xvi) it erred in holding that the suit is not barrcd by limitation; xvii) it committed error in apprecia[ing rival claims.

11. Sri B- Ganu, learned Scnior Counsel appearing on behaif of Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for appellants contends that OS No. 527 of 1989, i.r,hich rvas decreed, against which the Appeal vvas hled, is the seconcl round of lrtigation as plaintiff suffered decree in OS No- 1515 of 1978 dated

23.O7.79a2 (trxs. 84 & 85) rvhich u,as filed by appellant (D-1) for permanent injur-rction. Thc said decrcc was upheld in AS No. 388 of 1982 (Exs. 86 & B7). It is conrended that the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that Sakin Begum was insane and the gift deeds by her (Ex. 83) and another werc declared to be void in judgment in OS No. 455 of 1983 (Ex.A21). The said assumption of the trial Court is contrary to the evidence and ) ) \ I j, :.: 10 based on t:o:- jcctures ancl surmises ln trx A2 1, rro relicf r"':rs granted to Jubeda Begum since she rtirs not in possesston ol the propert\.'. It is further contended that judgment in OS No l O l 1 1 . 1 . of 1976 (E;<. ,\22) is not binding on Mohd Abdul Flabib and his Legal Repres,,j n latlves as they are not party to it The presenl suit is barre (l b1r limilalion. Though it u'as obsetwed that Gift Deeds in cluestions were executed undcr unduc influence, the relief of cier:1;,rration of the same as void rl'zrs deniccl The obseratiols of the trial Court thaL though OS No 455 ol 1983 (trx. A2 1) '*,eLs dismissed, hndings, u'l-rich u'cre agetinsL the legal heirs of M,'rh,l. Abdul having become flnal, they shal1 be bincling upon defettdilnt No.1, is per se pelverse' Iror this proposition, Icarncd Scnior Counsel pl:rced 11.2. reliance ,'rn Rdmesh Chandta o. Shiu Charan Dassl; Gendalal u. Raghunath (HC ol MP MANU/MP/ 1035/2006) and M/s Rir In Mohan v. M/s Ganesar Ginning Co Pvt Ltd 2' Learned Se: rior Counsel vehemently contends Lhat placing reliance on the hndings in OS No. 455 of 1983 is absoh-rLel1' uncalled for and not permissible in 1au'. 'AIR lg91 lic u ar'+ t t2ooo t.t-.w +:1 I I l1 1 1.3. It is further contended that findings of fact as to possession of the 1"t defendant of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of OS No. 1515 of 1978 (trx.B 4) u.'hich u,as upheld in AS No. 388 of 1982 (trx.B 6) arc binding on respondent/ plain tiff under the pnnciple of estoppel. For this, Iearned counsel places reliance on Dadu Dagalu Mahasabha" Jaipur (h'ust) a. Rann Niuass; RVS Vara Prasad u. V. Ramda#. I I .4. It is also contendcd that purchase under Ex.A 1 is riot a bona fide one, there are no covenants zrs to the delivery of possession by the vendor Jubeda Bcgum to the purchaser since the vendors are not in possession of property. The propcrty is shown to have been sold for lcss lhan the registration value without any explanation for same. The lact that plaintiff r.n as dispossessed after obtaining injunction in OS No. 1515 of 1978 is totally disproved. Learned Senior Counsel prays for allorn'ing the appeal.

12. Per contra, Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, Iearncd counsel for plaintiffs/ respondents contends that Sakrn Bee through Mohd. Abdulla, GPA Holder filed OS No. 2O of 1967 on the hle of the i Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad against both the wives of r AIR 2oo8 sc 27a7 '2ot4(tl ALD 188 I I I t I t ?. the original c,'.r'ner for administering the cstate ol the deceased; cleterminat:or.l of her share and separate possessior thereon lr-t thzrl, Jubecla Elcc, thc 2,a qrif6 of the deceased, filr:d IA No l I ll9 of 1968 ir-r ,l)ll No. 20 of 1967 under Orde r 32 Rules 15 and Rulc L4 rcad rvith Sectron 15 1 CPC see king appointr.ncnt ol next friend or cr>ut1 guard ian for the persona and property of Sakina bce on lhc grouncl that Sakina Bce is ol unsound mind The Clourl, bv orrle r clated 25.03.1969 (trx. A19), opinecl Lhat though there is no colclusivc evidence of insanity, bv i'irt-'te of old :lge, rrrental tveltkttess, inability to r.r'alk and express llerself eitl'rer by speech or 5) llesturc, her inability to move is a mental infirmity and unabl: t,r protcct her interest in the suit and it is thcrelore, neccssarry tl',rtr she should be represenled by hcr next fricn<l to protect her interest in the suit. Eventually, the said sult uras dismissed. The frndings of the Court about the unsound mind of Sakina Boc attained linality. Undisputedly, the title to thc appellant ilc,',t from the Gift Deeds executed by thc said Sakina Bee in a str:te of unsound mind and under uncllte influence' Thereforc, th,: trial Court has rightly hetd that the said Gift Dceds are irL salid.

12.1. 'fo buttress his contentions, learned counsel for defen{+nts -elie d upon the following decisions: Saiianashin 13 Saged. MD. B.E. DR (D) bg LRs u. Musa Dadabhai Utnrnef; WiTlio.m.s v. Lourdusa ntg6; G, Naragan Reddg u P. Naragan ReddgT; Bansilal Ratua u. Laxminaraganas; Tirumala Tirupati Deoasthanams u. K.M. Krishnaiahe; and Vanagiri Sri Selliarntncrn Agganar tJthirasomas;undaresutq.ram Temple o. Sri Rajanga Asqrilo.

13. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is clear that Mohd. Abdullah was the original owner of 6,OOO Square yards in Survey No. 7, Padmaraonagar, Secunderab:rd. He obtained a layout dividing the land into Plo[s I Lo 24. He died on

28.O1.1964 leaving behind him his mother Sakina Bee, first wife Ameena and second wife Jubeda Begum, as his Legal Heirs. Sakina Bee died on 09 .06.197 2. Ameena filed OS No. 10 1 of 1976 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, Hyderabad, for partiLion against Jubeda, the second wifc. This suit rvas compromised. Jubeda and her children got plots l Lo 5,7,8, 12, 13, 14, 15 ar,d 24 of the layout. They sold Plot No. 15 to plaintiff. After the death of Mohd. Abdulla on 28.01.1964, Sakina mother of ' (2ooo) 3 scc 3so u lzooey s scc 647 ' 2ot6(3) AL't t2 ' 1969 (APLJ) 408 ' (1998) 3 scc 331 'u AIR 1965 Madras 355 ), ,. t , l] 14 Abdulla throttqh her brother Mohd. Abdul Habib filed OS No 20 of 1967 (rr Lhc lile of the I Additional C hief ''ludgc' Secunclcral>atL for administration of the estate ol Ab<luiLa in ol / 19tr8 fbr thaL suit, .Jtrbecla Begum filed IA No 1139 appointrnetLt tl rtext friend to take care of Sakina L9b7 rv.rs c[ismissed as settled out of Court Sakina Bee crecutcd t',r'o gift clecds clated 08.1 1.1971 and 09 1 1 1971 in OS No. 20 ol f:rvour of N,TohC. Abdul Habceb b1' rvhich the property including suit sched rl: plot u'as gifled. Sakina Bee died on 09 06 1972' It4ohrl. Abilu. Habib ancl others filed OS No. 313 o1' 1972 on the llte of tl-re \/ Additional Judge, Hyderabad agzrinst Jubcda Bcgum lor it- junction. Thc plaint was returned arld it rT'as not rc prescntt:cl. l{:Lbeeb sold thc suit plot to Mrs Sajeedzr on 15.1i-1()71. Mrs. Sajeeda executed a sale dced dated )-. O3.t97'7 ': favour of Defendant No.l He filed OS No 1515 of 1978 on tlre tiLc ol the I Additional Judge, Secunderabad against ilabib lor rrr-'rpetual injunction. This suit '"1'as decreed on '22.07 ."9a2. [t u'as confirmed in AS No. 388 of 1982 dzrtcd 18.O7.1983 :rnd Second Appeal No. 312 of 1984 dated

22.06.1984..lube<la Begum and her children hled OS No. 455 ol t 1983'.,on rl're lile of the Additional Chief Judge, Citv Civil Courts, S..rrl,i..rb,ul against the heirs of Mohd. Abdul Habeeb lor a I I I i i , l5 declaration that gift deeds executed by Sakina Bee in favour of Mohd. Abdul Habeeb as null and void. This suit was dismissed on technical grounds. However, finding was recorded that gift decds are vitiated since Sakina Bee vgas insane at that Lime. Dcfendant No.1 sold 13O Square Yards out of the suit plot to Defendant No.2-

14. The very foundation for the delendants to claim titlc ovcr the suit schedule property flows lrom the gilt deeds executed by Sakina Bee in favour of Mohd. Abdul Habib. The contention of plaintiffs is Sakina Bee was in unsound mind at the time of execution of the so-cailed gift deeds and hcnce, they are void. OS No. 455 of 1983 was filed lor dcclaring the said gift deeds as nul1 and void. The Court, in the said suit, has catcgorically, by iLs order dated 25.03.1969 (trx. A19) opined that though there is no conclusive evidence of insanity, by virtue of old age, mental weakness, inability to walk and express herself either by speech or by gesture, her inability to movc is a mental infirmity and unable to protect her interest in the suit and it is therefore, necessary that she should bc represcnted by the next friend to protect her interest in the suit. trventually, the said suit was dismissed. The findings of the Court about the unsound mind of Sakina Bee are not challenged/ carried in i i 16 Appeal and tl'irs, they altained hnality Or-r this soie ground' it can be held tl-rLt delendanls / appellants are having defectivc title over the suir ;,ropertv. F',)r the aforementioned analysis, this Court firlds

15. no infirmitr in the juclgment and decree of the Col.rrt belou"l'he Appeal is tht'refore, dismissed confirming the judgmer-rt and decrec of thc \' Senior Civil Judge, CiLy Civil Courts' Hyderab:rd' in O.S. \o. 5.1 / ot 1989, dated 23 08 1999' No costs

16. L ollsoqucnlly, Miscellancous Applications' if urnl' shall stand closed S D/.A.V.S.PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR P D //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, gi l' i* utfl'['*"**lt*r,'l,t[ii'""' El, Two C[) Copies 1 2 3 4 5 \,,LYSA #/ I i I ! ! i ! i i ! I t i i I HiGH COURT DATED: 10,,1012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CCCA.No.231 of 1999 -r:-* a?. , Y )'c/) 27[[T2ffi * a:SR411:l'; /: .L -z c\ i, DISMISSING CCCA WITHOUT COSTS I a.\ 1b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA clry crvtL couRT APP EAL NO: 231 OF 1999 Between:

1. B. Venkatesham S/o B Balraj Business R/o H.No.4_5_144, Jawahar Galli, Nizamabad (Died) per LRs App'ellants No,s 2 to 6

2. B. Sakku Bai, W/o. Late B. Venkatesham, aged about 65 years 3. K. Ramana, D/o. Late B. Venkatesham, aged about 4.1 years 4. B. Rajitha, D/o. Late B. Venkatesham, aged about 45 years 5. B. Sreedhar, S/o. Late B. Venkatesham, aged about 38 years 6. J. Geetha, D/o. Lale B. Venkatesham, aged about 33 years (Appellants Nos- 2 to 6 are Ri/o. H.No.4-5-144, Jawahar Galli, Nizamabad. '-- ---" Petitioners 3,4 and 6 are represented by GpA Smt e SiktJ Biil Appeallants Nos- 2 to 6 are brought on record as LR of deceased A,oelant -aa-teo iI]llh) No-1 as per. the orders o[ honoi.rrabre Registrar rnquiries made in CCCAMP 480/t 2 AND 1 D. Subash, S/ H.No.6-1-1 18/3 oD 8,P oraiswamy, aged about 51 years, Occ: Emplovee. R/o admaraonagar, Secunderabari.(Died per L.R.S. 3 io 5) ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTI FF 2. R..Kashlnath, S/o R. Shankaraiah, aged about 70 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.1-8-92, Chikkadpa y, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT-2

3. K.R. Dhana Kumari W/o Late D. Subash, Age 62 years 4. S. Deepak Kumar S/o Late D. Subash, Age 36 years 5. S. Sunil Kumar S/o Late D. Subash, Age 34 years AII are R/o 11-3-26711OO, ti/adhura Nagar, Sec,bad_500025 (Res_.po_ndents Nos 3 to 5 are. brought on record as LR of deceased_ R-1, as per c.o. Dt 19-01-22, vide lA No. 6bf 201 I in CCCA. 231 of 1999) Appeal filed under section 96 of CpC against the Judgment and Decree dated 23-08-1999 in o.S.No.527 of 1989 on the fire of the Vth senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. --{ This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgnrent and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upotr hearing the arguments of Sri B Ganu appearing on behalf of lvts. l\/anjari S. Ganu, Advocate for lhe appellants and Sri B' Nalin Kumar' Advocate for ]-hL' Respondent No. '1 and T Surya Kiran' Advocate for Respondent No 2. This Court doth Orcler and Decree as follows:

1. That the Allpeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the judgment and decreeoftheVseniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourts'Hyderabad'inO'SNo. 527 of 1989, dated 23.08.1999; and

2. Ihalthere shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. D/.A.V.S.PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYI CTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. VH,/SA The Vth Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad Two CD Copies N/ HIGH COUR DATED: 1011012025 DECREE CCCA.No.2I]1 of 1999 DISMISSING CCCA WITHOUT COSTS ( \i) il>