The High Court · 2025

Judgment

HON,BLTJ SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHA..IILI AND HON',tilF i,l(l JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHIITTY LL CA.No.227 of 2010 UDGI)TI I .\Il- i .'t H u bLe Sti lrrstice Laxni Naraywn Alislrcthl 'f ri 1:resc'nt appeal is filed aggrieved by the irlclgn ent and decree cltt,rcl :10.08.2010 Passed in O.S.No 347 of 2OO4 'rn the file of the IX 1'cloitioral Chief Judge (FTC), Citv ('ivil Court, Hyderabatl.

2. L{eart1 'lrr. M.V.Suresh Kumar,, learned serLicr counsel appearir.g I,:r' St i A.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel c'n rt cord lor the Ap;,l: lirr t, Sli M.R.FIarsha, learned counsel ;rppeanng for Rcspontle r; lJos.1 to 5 and learned Governmelrt Irleadel for Assigr.rnrerrl irnpc,rring for responclent Nos.6 to 8

3. .'\p|i' 16,-,, s Defendant No.1, Respondert i\Jrs 1 to 5 are Plaintitls ur(l RL'spondent Nos.6 to 8 are Defend ant Nos 2 to 4 in the suit L-r:ir..rc tlLe Trial Court. IroL conveniencl-, tlc p,rrties are hereira.tc r ',,' err,-'cl to as they ale arrayed in the suit 4 Th<, l.,ri:f facts of tire case as narrated in the p,laint are thaL the fatl t: o thc Plaintif fs' cne Nazir Yar Jung n as J;ranted a 2 AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA.No 227 ol20l0 patta for land admeasuring Acs.g_32 gts. in Sy.No.1 29/70 sitaated between Road Nos.1 & 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, vide patta document dated 5rh Meher 1330 Fasli corresponding to 1920; that the said Nazir yar Jung expired on 06.07.1966leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors-in-interest to aI the properties left by him

4.7. The patta land was allotted TS.Nos.1,2 and 3 in Block R, Ward No.11; TS.Nos.26, Z4 to 42 in Block p, Ward No.11; that the Plaintiffs have got a layout sanctioned from Municipai Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) on30.1.2.7964;that in plot No.1 i.e., TS.No.1, no conslruction could be made since the land is situated in low lying and water stagnant area and the same was shown as water body in the sanctioned plan; that while that being so, the MCH issued norice dated 29.72.1964 under Section 293 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act stating that work of underground drainage line is taken up through the land of the Plaintiffs and that compensation would be paid as per the Rules. The MCH issued another letter dated 07.05.1965 informing that rough stones excavated during the course of excavation will he \ J ,1K5,J&LNA,J ,. '( I t'ta.2)7 of20t0 handec ()\'-'r to :ather of the Plaintiffs and conrperrsati:rn would also ['re pr rl

4.2. It 'r it ; lLrrther avelrecl that the Plaintiffs so['l ar extent of .1350 Sr1 'r',is. in I)1ot No.2 in'fS.No.2 in Sy No'129/ '70 t< one Ilyas Ahmert \lcrLai, r,ide sale deed bearing documer't No 38/1970 .1o1sd ()rr. '.1.lc-)70, retaining an extent of 816 sclnare meters in TS.No'l in !i".N,r.129/70.

+.3. t ir r; fulther averred that Defendant No 1 approached the Plaintif i' 1c l ttsmg the clried private nala land for :he rurpose of vehic[,t I)rr<inti. Accolclingiy, a letter of conlirn-r ttion-cum- 2.02.2000 was executed in f3r'our oi Defendant conselrt cl r hrd . No.l . I c1\ ('\/e1., Defenclant No.1, in collusion l ith Defendant Nos.2 tc -1, triecl to el'tcroach upon the PlaintiffJ la rrl t:r an extent crf 816 S.1 lrtiL's n the e'astern part of TS.No.1 ir Sy.\o.-l29 /70 arrd manaijeLl 1(, ol)tain municipal number from M(ll-[ authorities bealirg nrrLrricipal No.8-2-618/20/C on westeln sLtle tc' Plot No'2, TS.Nr .2 a rc' tr1 ing to laise structures therein illega LI1'.

4.4. 1t 'r.,r'; f urther averred that when the Plaintiffs ,rpplied for TSI-R e (tr rct with sketch plan for TS.Nos.l 'rnd 2 in 4 AKS,J&LNA,,J CCCA No.227 oJ )01A Sy.No.129/70, Shaikpet Village, it was revealed for the first time that Defendant No.1 is trying to encroach and raise structures; that the TSLR extract which was obtained on 27.0g.2004 shows the name of Nawab Nazir Yar Jung in Column-10 (pattedar colun-rn), G Kalva in Column-20 and underground drainage in Column 23 in respecr of Plot No.1 in TS.No.1, Sy.No.729/70 admeasuring 816 square meters and further, TS.No.2 admeasuring 1120 square meters shows the name of Nawab Nazir Yar jung in column 10 (pattedar column) and aiso in column 20 (possessor column); and that kalva or nala shown in column 20 of TS.No.1 is only a private canal of five feet width flowing across TS.No.1, but it does not admeasure 816 square meters; that the entry in the TSLR as G kalva for the entire TS.No.1 is a misnomer and a mistake and the same was shown wiihout notice to the Plaintiffs; that five feet width private naia was flowing across TS.No.1 underground and hence, the same needs to be corrected; and therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the following reliefs:- (a) To declare tlrc plaintffi as th.e ouners of TS.No.1 admeasuring 816 square meters in Sy.No.129/70, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Banjarn HiIIs, Hyderabad; .\\ \\ 5 .4 \'S J & LNA, J t \ ,1 \'a ))1 oI2010 (b) lc. rtirtrI tle.f :ndant No l fo tlelirter aacant posses!;lolt c'f the suit sc,r,t l.ti" Prt)L)ertV t'aiting ulich the Court may Llelitt'\' r'acaflt fro5s ..:ir.rl !lirouglt Court ltnilit't'; (c.) Tt tttt t'L I rleftndant No.4 to correct the efiries m T liLll; nnd (l) 7 t q,,t tl tt,antlatory injunctiotr directing defttt'lnrLt No 1 fo t't."t'.'. tltc trnnutlunjzcd illegnl structure:; irr fS No ? ln -5rr,l,/1. -197-9 adnrcasuring 816 squnre rneter:;, Shniklt,tt Village ,tt rl \ t t rlnl. HYdernbnd.

5. Def r: - r{,rnt No.1 filed \'vritten statement len"'ing the averme'rtr rnecie in the plaint and averred that he ha; no pcrsonal knowle,1p,e irhcrttl the grant of patta in favour of iatll:r' of the Plaintifls l() rn e.itcnt of Acs.B-30 gts. in Sy-No 12t)'/70, hon'ever he is ar,,ar,: rf the fact that the Plaintiffs held some lan<l and out of thc sair'l l,i rd, they sold an extent of 1350 Sq Ycls ir favour of Ilyas !.hur:'J \'1enai through a registered szrle 'leeci bearing docurrrrrnt )l-o.3[]/1970, dated 06.01.1970; anc thrt I)efendant No.1 6u:cJrrserl an extent of 195 Sq.Yds. e'ech, totrrling 390 Sq.Ycls , -rorr th : Ilyas Ahrned l\4enai under trvo rcgis [ered sale deeds vii1e' t[rrcurnents bearing Nos.1946/1994 and 1952 / L994.

5.1. I[ 'i; s. itLrlher averred that Defendant Nc,.l is; no. aware of allotmtr t ,.)l to\\ n survey numbers of the suit schedulc property an5l san< t:o r of lavout dated 30.12.1964; that no c.ius€ of action 6 AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA.No 227 oJ)|10 had arisen for filing the present suit and TSLRs are not authentic, as in innumerable number of cases, TSLRs are found to be mcorrect.

5.2. It was further averred that Defendant No.1 purchased an extent of 475 Sq.yds. bearing Municipal No.B_2_61g/20/C frorn one Mohd Rafeeq through registered sale deed vide Doc. No.5226/7993; rhar an extent of 390 Sq.yds. forms part of land sold by Plaintiffs in favour of Ilyas Ahmed Menai and an extent of 475 Sq.Yds. purchased from Rafeeq is a different and distinct property. It was further averred that Defendant No.1 approachecl the plaintiffs for the purpose of using the area over the private naia for vehicle parking and letter of conf irmation_cum_consent dated 12.02.2000 was given, however it is denied that he is illegally raising unauthorized structures and is trying to regularize the said struciures in collusion with the other defendants; and further aver.red that he is acting in accordance with the letter of consent dated 12.02.2000 without violating the terms thereof

5.3. It was further averred that Defendant No.1 has obtained sanctioned plan from MCH for construction of building in the \ 1 } I7\, J & LNA, ) ' ', ,1tlo )27 of2010 area co\1'r'{.'([ bt sale deeds vide Doc Nos 19] 6l 7994 and 7952/1W| ,rrc1 t'onstructecl builcting in accot clart:e 'vith the sanctiore(l pl,u-. ilated 27.03.2004 and comPlete<l co Lrs [r r-rc tion' It was fur'lhrt .\'crr3d that the suit schedule ProPelt\' r ocs not form part ol tl e p:oprt:r'ty Purchased by Defendant No. and in any case, thr: l'l;'ir.tifi'; are not entitled to question the Ii5;hts rr title of Dcfenc{irr: t iic,..l c,r,er the said ProPerty.

5.4. 11 r';L:, fttt ther averred that Mohd Ra{eec1 [ro'n rvhom Defencl rr t rr o.1 purchased land undel sale det tl r ide Doc' No.522ri/ I9r!rii, rvas in peaceful possession o[ the sartl property for more than 2Ii r.ears and in viert' of long-stancl ing f-ros:;ession of proper'lv hc pr:r.'ected his title even by advet'se po'st'ssion to the know'lecl ;r' ,rf the I'laintiffs and that the possessiorL r'r-a s oPen' It r,r,as ftr,'tlrr'' i verred that MCH filed a suit in OS.N'I.24 i3 ol 7991' againsl t't: r,t'nclor of Defendant No 1 i.e , llirfeeq for unautholi.zcc[ constluction in an extent of 475 Sq.\'tls. and thus, the verLtlc r rr' l)efendant No.1 was in possession of he said extent even a; r'- 199'1, which is much prior to sale of propcrty in his favour irr '.1r,: yr:ar 1993. Defendant No.1 finally :onte nded that r,r.hen he is rot changing the nature of suit land ber onci the scope . .., -.'/' 8 *,lfrlif !ii:,i of confirmation-cum-consent letter dated 12.02.2000 and the construction is not done over. the suit land, the suit is false and baseless and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.5. Defendant No.3 filed written statemeni and averred that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable since notice under Section 80 CPC was not issued and the application filed to dispense with notice under Section g0(2) CpC is devoid of any merit. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have no right to claim the land in TS.No.1 Block R, Warcl No.11, Shaikpet Village as the same is classified as ,nala government land,; that the plaintiffs are tracing title over TS.No.1, Block K, Ward No.11 of Shaikpet Village which was a'nala, falling through the land and such nalas are treated as 'government lands, during town survey operatlon.

5.6. [t was further averred that town survey of Shaikpet Village was done in the year 1,965-70 under the provisions of Ap Survey and Boundaries Act,7923, which was extended to Telangana area with effec t from 01.08.1959; that notification under Section 13 of the said Act was published in Gazette No.13 dated 2g.02.1977 and. as per the survey, old Sy.No.129 /70 was correlated to various \\ 9 . KS,JELNA,J ( t. :1 ,Ya.)27 oI2010 town strl\'c'.' rrttnrbers and the relevant TS nurLbel Ior scheclule propel t'i s I ! .Nc,.1 Block R, \{arcl No.1 l of Shaikpet \"illage and is classiIicc ,t'; rtala i.e., Government land, w'hic[r ; corl elated to Sy.No.12! /l'r) b,' virtue of a patta dated 05rr1 \4el'er 1330 Fasli and tha t lh,: 'laintiffs are put to strict proof o1 the rr o"vnership ovcr th: sai,l property; that in column 10 (pattedar --c'lunrn) of lSLR, i. \"iii le.orded as Nazir Yar Jung and colut-trtt 20 .Narne of preserlt t'r1ct'er'). the name of 'G (Government) uncl.lr'ground cllainage' \\'(uj rertorded; that any Person aggrievecl Dv t re cntries ur TSLILs rarr file a civil suit within a period of tl'rr':e y':ars from the dat,: -r. i;,rzelte publication, however, in thtl pr':sen I case/ no suit ha s L,r:,: r f' led within the stipulated tinre, he'r' :fore, the entries rr a,.1,: in the TSLR have beconle finai ancl bi;rtti;rg on the partics arri ,t'; such, the suit is barred by limitation ; Lrd js liable to bc clisn ri:;si. cl 57 It .r,,1:, further avelreci that the allegations Llrai I )efendant No.1 irr ollr slor with Defendant Nos.2 to 4, had attt mptecl to grab the ia nci of the Plaintiffs and is attemptinlJ to regt larize the illegal cc rlilructr.on are false and baseless and fir-rall1 , prayed to dismis:; tl-rt, ; rit i l0

6. The Plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Defendants and averred that the allegation of Defendant AKS,J&I.NT,J CCCA.No.227 of 2A t0 No.1 that he has no personal knowledge about the grant of patta in favour of father of plaintiffs is false since in a suit filed by Defendant No.1 against MRO and MCFI vide O.S.No.1639 of 200L on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, seeking grant of injunction not to interfere with the suit schedule property ther.ein i.e., House bearing Municipai Nos.8-2-518/20/C, g_2_67g/g parr anci 8-2-618/9 part adrneaswing 475 Sq.yds. and 195 Sq.yds. respectively situated at Road No.11, to which one of the boundaries on the west is shown as plot No.1 (TS.No.1), in para 3 thereof, it was clearly admitted that land admeasuring Ac. g_30 gts. in Sy.No.129 /70 was allottcd to father of the plaintiffs.

6.L. It was further averred that the plairrtiffs have sold an extent of 1350 Sq.Yds. to Ilyas Ahmed Menai uncler registered sale deed dated 06.01.1970. The said Ilyas Ahmed Menai sold an extent of 959 Sq.Yds. vide two separate sale deeds to Basheer Khan and his wife-Aiasha Sultana, vide sale deeds dated 1.-1..06.1992 and L5.06.1992 bearing Doc. Nos.3685 /92 and3616/g2respecrively in respect of Municipal Nos.8-2-261/9 and 8_2_216/B; tirat the said l 1 I \ .l l1 tK; .t & LfA J . ,\ , )21 oi20l0 | Basheer F.har, ancl Aiasha Sultana have obtained [rertr-Lissi' rn from MCH I'jcte :,a -r:tioned plan dated 26.09.2003 an<l have I aised ar complex corrrir:ising of stilt + five floors and ttre s;iLme falls in TS.No.2 aILcL that he has surrendered an exteni o[ -100 square yards in rc:cl tr.i:Iening and therefore, there is nc op':n land available frrr _.ale after 1992and thus, the contention cf L)efendant No.1 that 1it' pulchased an extent of 195 Sq Yds each rttrdet two registerel rir [r' deecls is misconceived and incorre':t'

6.2. It n';r'; :rrrther averred that thc vendor of Def :rldiint No 1 i.e., llyas; ,\'rned Menai has attempted to grab the suit schedule propertl oi the Plaintiffs in TS.No.1 i e-, the strit :;chedule propertl k,y f .t titi,rus sale deeds and fictitious mtrnicipal rumbels ancl that Ro rpchand Pardesi is a black listed pcrsr-'rr having absconderrl tr,rLr [ndia after collecting more than 200 clor::s and is wantecl L-1' )olice; and that Defendant No.1 obtainc 'l bogus Municil,a I'Jrs.t,-2-618/20/C & 8-2-618/5, 1sv1'1'g..{ b1' 816 Sq.Mhs c | \'/,-stern side of Plot No.2 (TS.No.2) of su l lar td'

6.3. It r,'a; furlher averred that the allegatiorr that c efendant No.1 purt hrLrx:d an extent of 475 square yards frorn l"ioh.l. Rafeeq under r,:g i:; r'r'ed sale deed bearing Doc. No.5226 is a lso alse. The t2 AKS,J&LNA-J CCCA.Nd22Z of 2010 said documents are fabricated and created by the GpA holder Roopchand Pardesi of Ilyas Ahmed Menai, though the latter had no land avaiiable with him to alienate; thai Defendant No.1 played fraud in collusion with Ilyas Ahmed Menai in obtaining two GPAs in respecr of Municipal No.g-2-61g/20lC, Road No.11, when the property of Ilyas Ahmed Menai property bears Municipal Nos.8-2-618/g & 9. It is unexplained as to how Ilyas Ahmed Menai could give GI,A to Rafeeq for non_existing Municipal N o.B -2-678 / 20 / C.

6.4. It was further aver.red that the consent letter dated

12.02.2000 stood automatically revoked and cancelled as soon as Defendant No.1 started encroaching on the plaintiffs, property and despite the objection and also injunction order granted by the Court dated 30.09.2004, Defendant No.1 went ahead his illegal activities and completed structures and therefore, Defendant No.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/_ as mesne profits. It was further averred that the allegation that Mohd. Rafeeq had been in peaceful possession for 25 years before execution of sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1 is fictitious and concocted and thus, \ \ \ 13 Ili , J .* L\4, J . \ , !t. 2): of))lA there is n,t,lucstiort of perfection of title of the saitl Nl'rhd Rafeeq by adverse pro:;s,ession.

6.5. It 'virs lttrther averred that the said Roopch;intl Pardesi who is (lF 4, holder of Ilyas Ahmed Menai exe'cult'd t'vo sale deecls; that i ' tl-re sale cleed executed in favour of Deitlnd; nt No 1 only Mu'ri-i[',t: No 8-2-618/8 (part) was shown, 6611 1'1 s'' in the sanction<'cl ::'lan c,f defendant No.1, the Municipal nu'lber is mentiont'tl a. lt-2-618/B & 9 Road No.11, which is 'vithout anv basis; thart Lh:r: is no correlation between sale cleecls erc't utecl by GPA ho d,'r. r nc1 actual property on site; that Deli'rrtia rrt No 1 with ar ill- trotive had obtained the consent ettel dated

12.02.201t0 to (t()\'er up the latest illegal encroachnretrt; an 1 also to camouflrtg,: lr .s encroachment in TS.No.1 an<l tc' gt'i bogus permissior f r,;Ll the MCH

6.6. lt n as frrrttrer averred that the Plaintiffs have frlel a sub- division rrap sut,mitted by Defendant No'1 in a clLiier'':nt case, whereir-r t1.u' yr an shows an existing building in lnunrciprrl Nos. 8-2-678/B &: () ancl the encroached land belonginl3 to tl'Le l'lalntiffs is short,r a)-,t,ttin1;. Thus, there is clear enctoachment nr TS.No.1 as evic :n t I rrm the photographs; that there js n -,r :c,rrelation t4 AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA No.22? of201t) between the GPAs, sale deeds and the achral property on site; that Basheer Khan and his wife have constructed cellar + 5 floors in his entire property and there is nothing available for sale to Defendant No.1. Thus, knowingly fully well that there is no property available with Ilyas Ahmed Menai, Defendant No.1 created and concocted three registered sale deeds in collusion with the GPA Holder and playecl fraud.

6.7. It was further averred that the MCH issued a letter informing that two rooms constructed in House No.g_2_618/g are getiing effected in road widening of Road No.11 and called upon to remove the said rooms within three days. In reply to the said letter, Ilyas Ahmed Menai hacl stated no objection for acquiring his land for road widening and asked for compensation and build the compound wail as in the case of others.

6.8. It was further averred that the sanctioned plan purported to be obtained by Defendant No.1 for construction of building shows M.Nos. 8-2-678/ I & 9, but these municipal numbers belong to Iiyas Ahmed Menai who has raised comprehensive shucture. The Defendant No.1 contended that he has purchased M.No. 8-2-618 /20/C wlnicir. is not shown in rhe plan. I ,\ l5 -r tL\, / ct /-IIl J .. t 1\to.!^)7 al )010

6.9. It n a' f ulther averred that Defendant No 3 admi [ted that thc olcl i;r i.',r 12?/70 is correlated to TS'No'1, tilocl< Il' Ward 11 of Shaikpr:t \ illage and the name of Nazir Yar Jung s shcu'u and hence, th,:st' l'taintiffs have absolute right and title D'r:fendant No.3 hrrs nc t tli;puted the saie in favour of llyas .Ahmed in 1'S.No.2. v'lo'r'or':r Defendant No.3 did not dispute the fact that both Br,ch,,rr Khan and Aisha Sultana, on ollc h'rnd and Dc.fencl,u-t ).1o.1, or-r the other har-rd, have obtai red clifferent sanctiorrerl -.lrns for the same Property; that the questlorr oI filing a civil stIt ir iihirr three years does not arise since Plrrinti[fs' rights have L-',r'r' r ,: ;'ablished and recognized from the' da:e ol I']atta till the dah:,rl crct'oachment by Defendant No.1; ttrat cven the ISLR given rt I ltr: governmetlt shows the narne of :he Plaintiffs' ancestc'r',rs f attedar and that, tiII today the Surrver l)t rpartment has nc,t i.st:ec1 any notice to the Plaintiffs fol .rry sun'ey conductrcl L,i tl-re Covernmcnu and that with t'cga rcl to issuance of SectLorr -rl (. I'C notice, Plaintiffs have filed apPlicat -ou under' Sectior Et) r-l) C['C.

6.10. 1t ir,a:; further averred that the allegation that ]t{r.ll-:l filed a strit irr L-S rlo.?453 of 7991against Rafeeq is in<'orrr:ct a rd in fact, t6 ,IKS,J&LN:I,J of20tA ^"o.227 CCCA the suit was filed by Rafeeq against MCH, and the saicl suit was dismissed for default on21.12.1997 and thus, prayed to decree the

7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Cou rt f ramed Lhe following issues: a. Whether tfu plaintffi are legal lrcirs of Inte lustice Nauab Nazir Yar lung and are the ozuners of Sy No.129fi0, Shaikpet Village, admensuring Acs.g_32 gtmtas under the patta grantetl by Niznm and ruhether T.S.No.i suit schetltrle extent g16 sa. mts. forms part of patta land as TSLR? b. l\hether defendant No 1 rs aware about grant of patta of Acs.8-32gts itt Sy.No.129/70 to Nnzir yar Jung? c. Whether llyas Ahmed Menai soltl the entire property t0 Bhnsheer Klun and his ruife in 1992 under tuto sale deeds bearing H.No.8-2-618/S A 9? d. Whether defendant No.1 utilized letter of confirntntion_cum- consent letter dated 07.02.2000 and constructed 6 floors complex in suit land? e. Whether plainttffs are entitled for nesne profts @ Rs.50,000/_ per month from date of rejoinder? f. lNhether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction as prnyed for? g Whetlur llyas Ahmed Menai shoun H.No.g_2_678/B (part) in sale deed to Aiasha Sultana under document No.36.16/92 dated 15.06.1992 as contendedby defendant No.1? h. Whe ther plaintffi are entitled to decree as prayed for? \

1.7 )iS J & I.NA, ) i. t.,1 \ra.):7 of 2014 t. l( I'l.tti L'lLcl! Addition;rllssue: l'!hc1/r,''' t,', gittil Court has no jurisdiction and ltr Slvcial Cct tr t ;t ).ttul Grnbbing (Prohibi tion) Act, 7982' nlo Lt' lu's got jttt.i !r L trl

8. Dur urr tltc course of Lrial, to substantiate thcir case/ on behalf of .l e I'lair-rtiffs, Plaintiff No.5 was examinecl a-s ['W 1 and Exs.A1 .o i'i.21 tr,e're marked. On behalf of the Dt:fen-'lar-rls, DWs'1 & 2 lt.r.r: "r t rtint'd and Exs.B1 to B21 rver e marked. g. I h -' I r ial Court on due consideration of tl-re oral and iss ue Nos l documen ar r crridence placed on record, as re€iards and 2 hel.l :hrt t're Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of lrte I'Jazir Yar Jung a;rc 1 1r owners of land admeasuring Acs.8-3 1 gts 1n Sy.No.12(17';) Sl-raikpet Village, Hyderabad anrl thus, irns\trered the said i:;stt,r:; in favour of the Plaintiffs g.l. Irrso ,r'as issue No.3 is concerned, the Trial Crurt heid that Iiyas ,\lrrr,'i: Verrai has solcl entire proPerty to ilasheer l(han and his wif,:-r\;Lisha Sultana after losing about 40() Sq.Ycls. in road widenng il r.r thus, answered the said issue accordingll. ! ]E IKS, J & I-NA, J CCC,I.No.227 of2Al0

9.2. Insofar as issue No.4 is concemed, the Trial Court held that Defendant No.1 consiructecl multi storied complex in suit schedule property on the basis of letter of confirmation_cum- consent

9.3. Insofar as mesne profits are concerned, i.e., Issue No.5, the Trial Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a separate suit for ascertaining the mesne profits

9.4. Insofar as issue No.6 is conserned, the Triat Court has categorically held that entire building was constructed illegally on the iand belonging to plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for.

9.5. With regard to issue No.7, the Trial Court negativecl the contention of Defendant No.1 that plaintiffs are not entitled to suit schedule property since the ancestors of the plaintiffs have sold all the plots in Blocks R and p, Ward No.11, and further, held that by non-filing of declaration of properties before the authority concerned does not deprive the title of persons concerned and consequently observed that the plaintiffs are owners of land in t \\- 19 , K,:;,.1 & LNl J | \'o )2i of2010 a: Sv.No.]'29 /l() in fS.Nos.1,2 and 3 in Block R, Warcl No 11 and l'S.Nos.2(', -1j-+2 in Block P, \A/ard No.11 g.6. Irsol;r rs ir;sue No.B is concerned, the'frizLl Cottit held that the snrt ;chcclttle proPerty admeasuring [i1(r Se1. 1141" in Sy.No.12!'/;'() belongs to the Plaintiffs and not kr Dofenc:ants and thelefore, tlr,: Irla intif fs are entitled to decree a; prayetl for and also au.rrdccl costs against Defcndant No.1.

9.7. Ilrsil.iu trs issue No.9 and additional issue is r--:lt-tct rned, the Tlial Cor ll h:lcl that the suit being filed for dcclar atio r of title, recovert of p ossession, mandatory injunction ilnd cor: ection of entries in r'('|\,cnue records, only civil Court < an go lnto such cor-npleh,,r, r'e cluestions af ter full-fletlged trial ar rci u Itimately, held thirt thc (]rurt is empowcred to entertain the suit

9.8. Ev hcllin;3 as aforesaid, the 'i'rial Cou,'t I'Lclc udgment dateci 3,0 0t 2110 decreed thc suit in part against t[.re I )e{endant Nos.1 t: { tc :he extent of reliefs of declaration of tii1e, c elivery of the suit ;: redule property against Defendar. t llo.1 and manda':o rl iniunction and correction of levenue records. 20 AKS, J & LNA J CCCA No 227 of 2A tA Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant No.1 filed the present Appeal.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court failed to propeily consider Exs.8_6 and B-7 as per which legal heirs of late Nawab Nazir yar Jung did not inherit any property at Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; and tha t the Trial Court arso fa ed to consider trre fact that nala vests with the Government and no individual can claim any titlc to thc public nalas and none can have private nalas.

10.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the Court failed to identify the property claimed by the respondents and therefore, the hial Court ought to have negatived the claim of the respondents that they are owners of the suit schedule property; that the Trial Court came to wrong conclusion that Ex.B_14 was executed by the Appellant, but, in fact, Ex.B-14 was never executed by the Appeilan! and that the Trial Court failed to .consider the provisions of AP Survey & Boundaries Settlement ah, rsze. 2t , \:s, .t & L^i), J a | ,1 \'a :27 of201A

10.2. Ltra 'n,r I senior counsel further submittel tirat he Trial Court f.ril-.,1 t.r c rnsicler the fact that Respondr:nts No'r' 1to 5 failed to fjL'r,r'iginal title documents and faiied to PIoVe rheir title over the ;u Lt schedule PropertY, thus, the Trial Cc'urt faiied to considel Ii>.ti-8 -the evidence of father of responden: Ncs 4 and 5 in a su:t f;lcc for declara tion, ilr u'hich he has si,rtecl that his father Nlazir ) al ung sold away different plots ()xcePt Irlot Nos 6 and 9 arrc 1h rs, except Plot Nos.6 and 9, rcspondctrt Ntr' to 5 did not hav: rrr lan,-l in Sy.No.129/70, however, the I'r ial ( ourt has corne to alr r.'r'or.IooLrs conclusion

10.3. I-ea rr crl counsel further submitted that the I -l r a1 Court failed to , o rsider Ex.B-7 order passed by the Speclrl Oificcr and Compcrc'-r' \ uthority, Urban l-and Cciling, Hvde'aba 1, as Per n,hich, f;r:h:r c,f resPondent Nos.4 and 5 ancl b other of respon<lent I'los 1 to 3 had 1187 Sq.Mrrs. ol vacarl land in Sy.No.12),"7C in TS.Nos.26 anc{ 34, Ward No.11, P,lt ck No.Ir, Banjara F{it1';, lI1'derabad and there is no refererrce :o arry land in TS.No.-- rvlLich is the suit schedule proPerty, which ce Lo rgs to the appellanr i 22 AKS,J&I,NA J CCCI Na.227 oJ20t0

10.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the confirmation-cum-consent letter dated 72.02.2000 vide Ex.B_14 signed by respondent No.S was in respect of a nala which is on the rear side of M.No.g-2_61g/9, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, which belongs to the appellant and therefore, respondent Nos.I to 5, having admitted ownership of the appellant cannot claim the suit schedule property.

10.5. Learned senior counsel further subrnitted that the Trial Court failed to consider the survey conducted by the authorities under the AP Survey ancl Boundaries Settlement Act,792|as weil as the Gazette issued on 28.02.7977 under Sections 13 and 14 of the said Act, which have become final since the same were not challenged.

10.6. Learned senior counsel further. submitted that the respondents have obtained decree by playing fraucl on the Court and therefore, the decree obtained by the respondents is nullity in law. He further submitted that the respondents have sought cancellation of sale deecls bearing document Nos.7946/7994 @xre-Z) andL952/7994 (Ex.B-3) execured in favour of appellanr which is per se impermissible since responclents are not parties to ) \ 23 IK;J&LNA,J t. t:t; 1 \ ) )21 or2010 the saicl <lcc:rnetrt; that it is settled principle of lan' llat a person who is n'lt . I)itrty to a document cannot seek fol carrccllrtion of the saicl rlccr trent and the oniy option/remedy is; filiLrg a suit for cleclaratl,rrr (,f titie. In the present case, atlmitteclly, the responcle 'n ts rave only sought for canceiation of saie deeds- Exs'B-2irnt1|i-3anddidnotSeekfordeclaratiolrarLdtl.Lerefore, the Trial ( orrlt ought not to have granted the reliefs :'otrg ht for to thc respor di'l11s.

10.7. Lea lrr,l scnior counsel further submitted trat lhcappellant has pur<:has:J an extent of 195 square yards eat:h urrcle Exs B-2 and B-3 anil has made constructions on the saic'l lrrrd by duly obtaining l):r nission from MCH and the lancl ':overt d under Ers.B-2 arrtl l-3 are different and distinct fronr :he r;ttit ;chedule propert'/ arrr despite the specific plea of appelhnt tha t both the propet-L-er, . r e clil'ferent, the Trial Court erronecusll' cle lrecd the suit with f)('r\ erse findings that vendor of appe lat-rt llatI no land to corvrl\ urc er llxs.B-2 and B-3.

10.8. I-ez,rrrt:t1 s;enior counsel further contend,:d that the juclgmenl. .rri(.l decree passed by the Triai Co'rrt rre lased on perverse fi rcings and non-appreciation of ev:dence 1'laced on 24 AKSJ&LNL,J CCCA.No 227 of 2010 record by the appellant, therefore, the Appeal deserwes to be allowed. In support of his contentions, Iearned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court: 1) Bihari Choutilhary €.t Anr. o. State of Bihar €s Ors.1 2) Uniott of lndia a. Ibrahirn llddin tt Anr.) 3) State of Gujarat o. Kothari €t Associates3 4) Committee tf Managenrent Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi a. Rakhi Singh €s Ors.t 5) Sheikh Noorul Hassau zt. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh €.r Ors.s 6) S.P Chengaloaraya Naifut zt. f agarrnath.o

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the Trial Court on due appreciation of oral and documentary eviclence placed on record and on interpretation of relevant law in proper perspective has rightly decreed the suit. The present Appeai is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

11.1. Learned counsel further submitted that Iate Nawab Nazir Yar Jung-father of respondent Nos.1 to 5 has been allotted an 1 (19U) 2SCC 627 2 (2072) I SCC 148 3 (2016)'t4SCC761 4 (2024) 3 SCC 336 s 2024 SCC Online SC 8114 6 1994(1) SCC 1 .\ 25 U,.. .t & LNA, J I t t't \'. ):) o12010 extent of .\,:s ti.30 gts by Sarfekas Mubarak; tlrat he c'btained permission l-r'rrrn N4CH and divided the said lan<l into p ots and sold an ,:xt<:rt oi 1350 to Ilyas Ahmed Menai trnde r se Lc deed bearing clocurnent No.38/1970 dated 06.01 1970 v'rhir:n is :overed by Plot Nio.2:, li No.2.

11.2. Learnt'rl corrnsel further submitted that out ol lhc said extent, lll'irs .rl rmt-'d Menai has lost an extent of 400 scluarc y'urrds in road rvir'lcning rnd he was left with 950 square'Yarcls r'"hrch he has alierra k::l in favour of Basheer Khan and his rr'if'r-Aaisha Sultana uncl,::' trvo registered sale deeds bcirt'inr; d rcument Nos.368li/9,: and 3616/92, i.e., Exs.A-19 and A'20, resp'ectively, and as su fi, the :;aid Ilyas Ahmed Menai had rto l:'nti eft with him.

11.3. l.t:arned counsel further submitted that tl-re' ap'J ellant is claimin6; [-,a . he purchased an extent of 390 S-q.Ycl:; Lrr tcler two sale ,-lcerls bealing document Nos.1946/199'4 (Ex I'-2) and 7952/7994 (tr.Il-l)) through GPA holder-Roopchanil I',rr desi and also tl'rrorr15h saler deed executed by Mohd.. Raiecxl (Ex B-a). He further srrtr rrittecl that the said GPA is created atrcl Err';.B-2 and B-3-sale c ee 'tt:; '"vr:re executed in respect of non-,:xisl ing land and 26 AKS,J&LNA.] CCCA.No 227 oJ 2010 basing on the said fabricated sale deeds, the appellant has managed to get permission from MCH and made construction on the land given on lease for parking.

11.4. Learned counsel further submitted that.house mentioned in Exs.B-2 and B-3 is in fact non-existing, from which it is clear that the sale deeds are executed in respect of non-existing land He further submitted that confirmation-cum-consent letter dated "12.02.2000 was only for the purpose of parking and however, conhary to the terms of the said letter, the appellant raised struchlres on the said land.

11.5. Learned counsei further submitted that the Trial Court has considered the evidence and matcrial on record and has come to categorical conclusions that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are legal heirs of later Nawab Nazir Yar Jung; that he was given patta in respect of Acs.8.32 gts. of land which is admitted by the Appellant in Ex.A-10 and also during the cross examination.

11.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 relied upon the following judgments: \ 2l . ,i.l ./.t INi, J a - -:4 \r:17 oJ)010 1) t/.1:.9. l<lanilasamy Nailar zs. The Proaince o.f Nlo dras €+ t\ttt.' 2) 'Ia,tt,tsclti Appayyantma o, Lakshman Saht's 3) lrrr'r' Prrttcha Murthy Co-op. House Buildin5'Sot iefi Ltd. i,. a o7:t. of AP €t Ors.e 4) )lr;tlarabad Potteries Pttt. Ltd. a. Collcctu', Il.rldernbad Distrct ii Anr.1o 5) l'irr,grr Begum €i Anr. o. State of AP I Ors.t 6) Stotptrt Kumsr Gangily tt. Smt. Smiritikat,a G tngrll2 7) ,t'Jrrltrtsi €t Ors. zt. Ram Phal13 E) Strltlttgtr €t Ors. o. Shobha €t Ors.1a .9) 1;11i r,, R,nrri zt. District ltilge, Mainpuri €t ()rs.1: 7(l)St'rttt o.f AP o. P. Kantilal f ain16 1 t ).it',ttt of AP z'. Hyderabail Potteries Pttl. Ltrl. t| Arn'.17 -11'.),1')t. l(t. Askari & Anr zt. Nszaab Mir Barl:at llli Khan, '11.,'1 thcNizaruWIIls )t'tr'l' eel Ahmed o. Syed Akhlaq Hussa le ').\) 72 ir L ILr: rght of glounds of appeal, submissttxrs madc on behalf ot L i tlr the parties, the following froir,ts rrise for consiclc :ct tir:)n o I this Court: 7 AIR 1q.. \la\- iul E Alll I!r;: ,1P'II l]2000(:i).\Il] )1 li 2001 (.1) r\ ,I ) i ( r) 11 2002 SrrrpL. .1 \l Il 539 (DIl) 1, AII( 2002 ( aIII rr AIR 2001 :,( l,)ri9 11 2006 ,\|( S,( \\ 855 ri AtR 2007 ,\ll Sl 16 2009 (l) A ,t ll ) (DIr) '7 2010 (l) z\ ,II ( 7 (SC 1s 2010t1) \l l, I l , (Dti) Lq 2023 (r)) i\ ,l ) r!l (S(-) 2E AKS.J&LNA.J CCCA No.2)7 oJ)Ala 7) Whether the suit schedule property, i.e., plot No.l, admeasuring 8L6 square meters, forms part of patta land admeasuring Acs.8-32 gts. in Sy.No.L2g/70, assigned to late N azir yar fung antl corresponds to TS.No.1 and Plot No.2 admeasuring 7350 square yards corrcsportels to TS.N o.2? 2) Vlhether llyas Ahmed Menai zoas teft utith any land after alienation of 959 Sq.yds. in faztour of Bashecr Khan and Aislm Sultana, and after losing an extent of 400 square yards in road utidenitg? 3) Whether the sale deeds bearing docunrcnts Nos.1946/1994 (Ex.B-2) and 1952,/1994 (Ex.B-3 executed by Ilyas Ahmed Menai through GpA Holder, ztiz., Roopchand Pardeshi and sale deed oide document bearing No.5226 of 1993 executeil by Mohd. Rafeeq are oalid in the eye of lazu? 4) Whether Appellant made construction upon the land admeasuring 816 Sq. yds. uthich the Appellant purportedly obtained for the purpose of parking, - pursuant to the letter-cum-consent cleed rlated \ 12.02.2000? 5) Whether the impugneil order requires interference of this Court? Point No.1:

13. The undisputed facts of the case are ihat late Nawab Nazir Yar Jung was granted patta in respect of Acs.g.32 guntas in Sy.No.129/70 vide patta document dated 5rh Meher 1330 Fasli \< 29 . L:S:.,! & 1N,1, J (-t ) .:,1 ';a:27 0r2A10 correspcn:l i.rs to L92O AD (Ex.A-1) along r'r'ith plan Ir A 2 lt also appears tlr; . lJarr ab Nazil Yar Jung got the la1"rut r;-'' p ovccl by l\4CH urrdr'r' :r..\-3; that as pel the said layout, land rtltr easuring 816 sclua e' rreters is in TS.No.1 and in thr: said lancl, no constm( tior coulcl be made as there is water bocly in -he plan' Ptot No ? i; rr fSi.No.2 admeasuring 1350 square yarcls and Plot No.2 rva: ,r ienated in favour of Ilyas Ahmed I'tlcn ri under rcgistclr:ti salc deed bearing document No 36./.19i (l dated 06,01.197() l tr r\-,j) As per Ex.A-6, the land is srtrlo-ttrc1 :d by the follolr'ir rg 1,, r t-tnc-lrLries:- North: Ilc.r<l tonsLructed by Nawab Nazir Yar Jung; \\esL: \a.ar East: Iic a [ ]r o.l ; rnd South: Lanrl t elo rging to Nawab Mahaboob Lat,:ef.

14. V/L,i ,' :t-., MCH has issued a notice dated 29,12.1964 to Nawab )iazil Yar Jung to the effect that drainage lint is being laid urilc'.'1; ourrcl with three feet width and 100 feet: long on westcn L i,i,.je ' tci l'S.No.1 of the plaintiffs' land and r:omr:tensation would Lr.: l,iLicl. Further, letter dated 07.05.1965 (Ex.A-4) was addresse,l [,r 1t4t]H stating that rough stones r:xcavate,d will be handcd c \,el to l\Jawab Nazir Yar Jung and compensation would 30 AKS,J&LNI,J CCC,,1.D"o 227 oI2010 also be paid. According to plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of Nawab Nazir Yar Jung, no part of Plot No.1 was sold to defendant No.1. As per Ex.A-9-Record of Measurements issued by Collector, Surwey and Land Records, Hyderabad District, dated 27.08.2004, Plot No.1 corresponds to TS.No.1 admeasuring 816 square meters and Plot No.2 admeasuring 1350 corresponding to TS.No.2. In Ex.A-6-sa1e deed executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1, the schedule of property is clearly mentioned as PIot No.2 admeasuring 1350 square yards in Sy.No.729/70, Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to plot Nos.l and 2 corresponding to TS.Nos.1 and 2 respectively forming pa t of Sy.No.729/70, Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad corresponding to Block-R, Ward-11, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District.

15. Coming to the oral evidence, plaintilf No.5 who was examined as P.W-1, has categorically stated that his father Nawab Nazir Yar Jung was granted Acs.8.32 guntas in Sy.No.129/70 in Road Nos.1 and 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the said land was allotted TS.Nos.1, 2 and 3, Block-& Ward-11 and TS.Nos.26, 34 to 42 in Block-P, Ward-11. Defendant No.1, who was examined )- \ 31 I,I5J&I,NAJ I t.( .1 . to )). of20l0 as DW-1. zLcl rr,ttecl that he has purchased Plot No.2 admrrasuring 1350 stlrralt' r arcls vide document bearing No.38,'1970 dated

06.0L.19, O rrx A-ti). Therefore, there is no dispule u'th r,:gard to Plot Nos.I arr J 2 being part of Sy.No.729/70, Shaikpet \'-illage and Mandal, I -1tl:rabad District. It is also evident, as obs:n,ed suPra, from Lr h-) Ret:ord of Measurements that plot No.1 admeasr r';n15 f ,16 rlquare meters and Plot No.2 adme;tsur ing 1350 square varcl: ::rre'sponds to TS.Nos.1 and 2 respecti';elr'

16. .\1 r.,rr,,1i:glr', point No.1 is answered in [a,'ou: of the plainti f f:, Point No.ll:

17. .\,lrrir.tedly defendant No.1 purchased ar extent of 1350 square y,ar c1:; cf Iarci in Plot No.2 of Shaikpet Village rnd Manclal, Banajara llrl[:r, Flyderabad (Ex.,4-6). Further, delt:ndent No.1 execute. r1?(, sak) deeds in favour of Basheer Kha:r arrd Aisha Sultana, i.r:, an e;<tent of 606.17 square yards was iclcl [o Aisha Sultana, ',,i lc. document bearing No.3616/'L)92, dated

15.06.19()2(lrr.'\-1')) and an extent of 352.87 square vards lvas sold to Bashrrel klran vide document bearing No.36357'1992, dated -1,7.06.1,9','2 {J:.r.A-ll0), in respect of Municipal Nos.8-2-618/9 and 8-2-618 /8 I he Iand admeasuring 606.77 Sg.)'ds 1n ) I 32 AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA No.227 of20l0 M.No.8-2-618l8 is surrounded by Road (North), Neighbour,s House (South), H.No.8-2-618/9 (east) and Vendor,s property (West). Land admeasuring 352.87 Sq.yds. in M.No.g-2_618/9 is surrounded by Roacl (North), Neighbours House (South), Road (East) and H.No.8-2-618l8. (West).

18. Thus, afLer alienation of an extent of 959 square yalds, dcfendant No.1 was left wiih roughly an extent of 390 square yards with him.

79. It is pertinent to note that in the year ,1982, Office of Assistant City Town Planning issued a ietter to Ilyas Ahmed Menai vide Lr.No.326lACl,-5/82 dated 19.11,.1982 (Ex.A17) wherein it was informed that two rooms constructed by Ilyas Ahmed Menai in premises No.8-2-618/8 & 9 are getting affected in road r.videning of Road No.11. hr reply, Ilyas Ahrned Menai issued a letter dated 23.11.L982 (Ex.A18) stating his no objection to the road widening and further requested time to demarcate the boundaries of his house to take up further construction. Further Exs.A23 & A24 show that land to the extent of 391 Sq.Yds. got affected in road widening. __._ J ) ,1 :,5 J & I.N/1, J 't: (.1. ,a 22t of 2010 --hc'rcf rrc, in view of the above, it is hell thr,t Ilyas

20. J) Ahmed tf.r;rai is left with no land after alienation oI 959 Sq.Yds. and after I,rs.11,; 396 Sq.Yds. in road widening 2L. Ihrr:,. an iriference can be drawn from Exs.A6,, A1i' to A20, A23 & 1y24 trat Ilyas Ahmed Menai obtained l)ernrissi,lns and buiit tu,o burl,1in1;s in M.Nos.8-2-618/8 & 9 and sold ,he land along lvith l,ui[dir-g to Basheer Khan and his wife r\isha iiulthana to the totaI r.,r:1cnt of 959 Sq.Yds Since road No.11 :.rr Exs_A19 & A20 is situatcc lo thc north, it can be inferred that Itr.as Ahmed Menai [o;t t'.r, lanrl to the extent of 391 Sq.Yds. in roacl i.r,i.]cning Point Nc.3:-

22. D\r'1 it clarming title through Exs.B2 to 84 I_),,\'1 ,ieposed that ther: is rr,r land of plaintiff to the rvest of I)lVl's property. DW1 is ciainrirrg land in 8-2-618/8 (part) 8:9 (part) and 8-2-618/'.'-0,/C rvhrch means 390 Sq.Yds. in plor i\io.2 rrnd 475 Sq.Yds. i'r rlo t lrvo.1.

23. I)Vr,l cleF,osed that Ilyas Ahmed Menai pur,:hased 1350 Sq.Yds. i:r l-l-:. \io.2 from the Plaintiffs. He further dep,lss6r that he is aware tha t Basheer Khan and his wife Aaisha Sultana purchaseC .r f ortron of the said property fron ll,,as Alrrned i r 34 1l AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA.No 227 of 20l0 Menai, but he is not sure when they have purchased. He further deposed that Basheer Khan and his rvife Aaisha Sultana made consLructions in TS.No.2 portion in about 960 Sq.yds.

24. Thus, as held on Point No.2, Ilyas Ahmed Menai had no Iand left with him after executing Exs.A19 & A20 and after losing an extent of 400 squarc yards in road widening and as a sequel, the sale deeds vide Exs.ts2 & 83 executed in favour of defendant No.1 by Roopchand Pardeshi-GPA holder of Ilyas Ahmed Menai are held to be void.

25. With regard to Ex.B4 executed by Md.Rafiq, it is relevant to note that vendor of Ex.B4 i.e., Md.Rafiq has not stated as to how he acquired title while executing Ex.B4 nor DW1 has placed any evidence on record to trace the title of Md.Rafiq. DW1 deposed that Md.Rafiq informed hirn that he is the GpA holder of llyas Ahmed Menai. The statement of DW-1 is contrary to Ex.B-4, which shows Md.Rafiq as an owner of schedule property mentioned therein and not GPA holder of Ilyas Ahmed Menai. The Plaintiffs have proved their title by virtue of TSLR extract- Ex.A-8 and Exs.A5 which shows the name of Nazir yar Jung. Whereas DW1 could not establish his title over the suit schedule Hoperty. There 15 nO whisper as to how Municipal \ \ l5 ,IKSJ&I,NA,J t: t:, \'.2)t of 2010 No.8-2-ri13 /ll0/C has been obtained for non-e;<isti'-rg 1,rnd, and further', l- o rr D\^,I1 traccs his title to his vendors- llt ar ' Ahmed f,4enar rn-rrl ), ohcl. Rafeeq, rvho, in fact, failed to ,:;tab iish their source o[ trtl:. Hencc, the said documents-Exs.B-2 tc B-'1 ale held to be nct r',rr ec1 26- 'l lr.' I lon'ble Supreme Court in Kizhakke l'othkudiyil Mndlmitan (Ilead) Thr. Lrs. a. Thiyyurkuumth Mccth,rl lonaki Itttl Ort.,'0 obst'rvecl as uncler 1l . l.' rrgl,t, title or interest in certnirr properhl 15 s'tuglt crt11.1(./ti lty n persott hy an rctrtutrcnt utln hersctf tlots not lr,)s ic j: 17,ry such fornr of entitlemettt on the stLbt(.t tk'Lttg cot10(.rlo, I, elen uith n subsisting deed of conuetla .c ott su cl1 li'o i(';11.', the grnntee ott her yLccessors-itt-in teresf ui'l not It,tt:,: lt'[nl -ight to enforce tlrc right tfu lm ter tnny lnoe tl,:r t,,t' fronL stLch nn instrunrcnt . . .

27. ttP|1f in, the above ratio to the presert r tsr', it can be noted thtLt :iLt,c Md.Rafiq failec'l to establish his .itle over the subject [a r1.1, ,]onsequently, no legal right is cierived br r lefendant No.1 thrcul;r Ex B-4. Thereforc, defendant No.l carnot claim the propert)' t() iirr extent of 475 Sq.Yds. in plot No.1 I 20 20p S( ti t)r Lirc 5( I 517 36 AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA.No.227 oJ 201a Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered against defenclant

28. No.1 Point No.4: 29 It is an undisputed fact that plaintiffs and Defendant No.l entered into letter-cum-consent deed dated 72.02.2000, wherein defendant No.1 was permitted to use the land for the purpose of vehicle parking. The subject land is forming part of private nala and situated behind Plot No.9. As per Ex.B1g, Defendant No.1 filed application with MCH for conshuction of house rn H.No.g_ 2-618/8 & 9 dated 27.03.2004 for ground, first and partly second floor. Ex.B-18-Building per.mission is only with regard to M.No. 8-2-618/B & 9 and not M.No.8-2-6"18/20/C. Since there is no land left in M.No.8-2-618/8 & 9, the building permission raises susPlcton

30. In the report of Advocate-Commissioner, who was appointed to note down the physical features of suit schedule property, it was mentioned that the suit schedule property is surrounded by Road No.11 (North), Tank (Sourh), Land belonging ro Ilyas I Ahm{d Menai (East) and Land belonging to Neighbour (South). It was also mentioned ihat there is a building consisting of five \ 37 t :s J & 1.,\'1. J \ ( I io2)1af2010 floors ard €,;(,t,lpt towards south, there are shutters iurc'l tin shed surrountlirl; lre s,rid building. The Advocate-Comnr issLc,ner also observec I h a,. it.. ;econd and third floors, conslr.nc.tion u,ork is Boing or anrl jn the fourth flool the ciismantled rnatcr-ial is l1,ing ancl upon r,rr -1t ir_1' the Defendant informed that MCtt clenrolished the fourt r l.'r,r .

31. D'N L ,.leposed that municipality demolished the 5tr, floor of his building 1 the deposition of defendant No. 1 (Drr\r- 1) is read ln consolla n( (' n'ith the commissioner's report, an ir fr.re rrce can be dran, r t1- zrt de,fendant No.1 had constructetl a ii.. c -storiecl building in tlLc suil schedule property

32. As rc qalrls the Advocate-Commissioner's re,pror:, cle fendant No.1 contenclr:<l tlLat as per orders, clatecl 20.09./00a, p,ssed in CRP No.,)551) of 2005, the report of the Acivocate,-Co nrrnissioner as regards ,h,l localization of suit schedule site'i.e., as tc r,,,hether it is coverecl trr, 1;.5o., or TS.No.2 was set asid e atrtl s,:ope of warrant,rf llt: r\clvocate-Commissioner was lin-riteci to noting down onl'. Jre physical features. Further, the, ;\p,pellant contenclc(l tl-rat he has filed objections to the ,:omrnis:,ioner,s i ..1 38 AKS,J&LNA,J CCCA.No.227 ol20l0 report requesting to reject the report, but the said objections were not even referred to by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. In relevance thereof, defendant No.1 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee of Management Anjuman lntezamia Masajid, Varanasi (cited supra).

33. The Trial Court has drawn inference that five_storied building is present on the suit schedule property in the light of the deposition of DW1, the fraudulent act of DW1 in creating Exs.B2 to 84 anci managing to obtain permission from MCH [o construct five-storied building and also the report of the Advocate-Commissioner. In view of above cliscussion and evidence on record, the contention of defendant No.1 is untebale.

34. Accordingiy, this Point No.4 is answered against defendant No.1 Point No.5:

35. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the findings of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 4, this Court holds that the impugned judgment of the trial Court requires no interference by this Court and as such, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

36. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. ) -/ 39 l(S.1d 1-,\r1, J i\a::iof2010 ttt, As a s:r1ucl, Pending Miscellaneous Petitions' it rrnv' shall stand clor,i'iI \r-r :osts //TRUE COPY// r;D/- MOHD. ISMAIL DlilurY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER I To, Hyderahad (OUT) '1. The lX Arllitional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Cor-rrt, l{yderabad 2. Twc, (:Cs to GP for Assignment, High Court for the State of Telangana at s. oie crc: tc bRI. ARAVALA SREENIVASA RAo Advocr:rte [oPUc] 4. OneC;C tc SFl. M. R. HARSHA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two O[) r]opir:s Ft',r -1, ,tL, kLrl,/gh HIGH COUR] DATED:13/06/202 3l +DECR[,T] JUDGMENT CCCA.No.227 cf Il0 l0 t o O r.: r{I 2$25 ? -t. t-{l ,r,'"' ;l .J iI :'.'l i.i DISMISSIN(;lllr(.(.\ wll'Hour cofi I\ b vd IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXM{ NAR{TYANA ALISHETTY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO 2>roE4010 Between: Ahmed Nizamuddin, S/o. Ahmed Yousufuddin Architect Rlo. 8-2-61218,12 Road No 11, Banjara Hills Hyderabad 500035 AND ...APPELLANT/ Defendant No. 1

1. Mohd Ghaziuddin Hassan, ( died per LRs RR 14 to 16 ) S/o. Late Nawab Nazir Yar Jung R/o. U.K.67, Hamilton United Kingdom

2. Muzafaruddin Hassan, ( died per LRs RR 9 to 11 ) S/o. Late Nawab irlazir Yar Jung R/o. U.K. 59, Gardon Bruck, Burkully London, United Kingdom

3. Begum Hameeda Abibullah, ( died per LRs RR 12 & 13 ) Dio. Late Nawab Nazir Yar Jung R/o. 1 1, M.G.Marg Lucknow, UtterPradesh

4. Mohd. Saaduddin Hassan, S/o. Late Nawab Nazir Yar Jung Rio. U-K. 59, Barkelly London, United Kingdom (RR No. 11o 4 are rep. by Res.No.S GPA Holder)

5. R.R.Hassan, D/o. Kamaluddin Hassan, Occ: Scholar R/o. 3-6-306, Hyderguda Hyderabad .. RespondenU Plaintiffs

6. Government of A. P. , Rep. by District Collector Hyderabad Diskict, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad

7. Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Banjara Hills, Road No.2, Hyderabad B. Deputy Director Land Settlement and Town Survey, Collectorate, 3rd Floor, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad District

9. Tahzib Fathima Hasan Wo- Mr. Muzaferuddin Hasan aged about 72 yearc '10. Nizamuddin Hasan S/o. Mr. Muzaferruddin Hasan, aged about 44 years

11. Mrs. Yasmin F. Faruki D/o. Mr. Mazafferuddin Hasan, aged about 41 years (Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.2 as per the Hon'ble Court Order dated 17-09-2013 made in CCCAMP No. 254 ot 20121

12. Dr. Na.zil Si,Jdiqrr D/o. Late Begum Hameeda Habibr.rllat:" aged 76 years R/o. E001il llir:hmond Park, DLF City Phase lV, Gurgaon - 122 OO2.

13.Mr. Wajahat i'labibullah S/o. late Begum Hameeda rlabibullah, aged 76 years fl/c. t:lat No. 529 Mount Kailash Apartmenb. T()wer 3, East of Kailash, \,:vr Delhi - 110 065 (Respondent Nos. '12 and '13 are brought on record f<,r the deceased Resporrdent No. 3 as per Court Order dated 01-02-2024 r,ide l.A.no. 1 of 2024in CC(lA No.227 of 2O10 1

14.Ms. Reqina -lasan Wo. Late MOhd. Ghaziuddin Hasan aged 81 years, Occ: llc,usrervife Rl/o. 57 Avainbay, Creone Hamiltr:rn, Lamokshix, Scotland , tJK

15. Bettina Fia:ran D/o. Iate Mohd. Ghaziuddin Hasan, aged about 53 years, Occ: Hous;ervife, R/o. 57 Avalnbay Creont Hamiltc n, Mamokshix, Scotland , [J (.

16.M. Nicholar;l{asan S/o. Late Mohd. Ghaziuddin Hasin, aged about 51 years, l?i o. 498 /D, Tower 6, Grand Promendade, 3 B 1aj Hond Street, Hankorrd ancl also residing at R/o. 57 Avalnbay, Car:rone Hamilton, Lamoks;sir:, lj cotland, UK ( Resporrderrt. Nos. 14 to 16 are brought on record for the deceased Respondent l{o.1 as per Court Order dated 01-02-2024 ,,,ide l.A.No. 1 of 2024in CCCA No.227 ot2010 ) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal Llnrler Section 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 374 ot 2004 dated 30-08-2010 on the file of t\e lX Additional Chief Judge (Fl'C:l City ,Civil Court, Hyderabad The ap:e'al ccming on for hearing, upon perusing the 'r4emorandum of grounds filed ir tl-rt: l\ppeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lcw::r Court and the record in the c;ase ilnd upon hearing the arguments of Sri NI V Suresh Kumar, Senior Counsr:l fc i- Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Apl:ellants and Sri M.R.Harsha, ,\clvoc:zrte for Respondent Nos.4 to 14 and Gc:vt. Pleader for Assignment for Fielitx)nd()nt Nos. 6 to B. l'his Crrr rL d rth ordr.r and decree as lollows l. I'har th: Lpo:al lre and hereby is dismissed 2. That th:re :,l.all he no order as to costs in this appeal To SD/ MOHD. ISMAIL EPU Y REGISTRAR o\ l. The IX .,\rlilirr'nal Chiel'Judgo (FTC), City Civil Courr. I SEc'l'toN rdel rhlit{ OFFICER 2, Tr.,',o (1.I ). il r:,tries HIGH COURT DATED:13/06/2025 DECREE CCCA.No.227 c,f ::0'10 DISN.{ISSINCi ll Ii: i a a.\ wtTllc)tJ t cto it s 'tl