NAZEER REPRESENTING SRI. WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the v. HARI HARAN SENIOR

Counsel for the Respondents in both : SRI V. HARI HARAN SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Sri A. NARASIMHA RAO The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: THE HONOURABLE DT..IUSTICE G.RAI)[IA RANr (]I'I'Y CIVIL CO URT APPEAL No.l63 of 2001 .,\ND ]'R,{NSF'ER APPBAL SUIT No.684 of 2016 COMMON JUD CMENT: CCCA No.l63 o1200 I is filed by the appellart_plainrifT aggricved by thc.iudgnient and decree dared 17.01.2000 in o.S No.ll0 or- I996 on thc fllc.l I[[ Scnior civil Judge, city civil courl. Secur.rderabad fbr disnrissing the suit Iiled by her seeking the relief oIde:lararion of'ritle and conscqUential in junction. 2'lhe plaintiff in o.S. No.l I0 of 1996 was showrr as crcfer.rda.r in o.S. No.378 ol-1997. o.S. No.378 of 1997 was fired by rrre respo,dent hcrein as plaintilf seeking the relief of perpetu rl in-lunction. .fhe respondcnl he'rein initially hled o.S. No.5 17 of 1994,on the flle of XI Assistant Judge, city civil couri, Secunderabad znd the sanrc was transl'erred to [ll Senior civil Judge, Secunderabad ard re-nunrbered as o.s. No.378 af 1997. Borh the suits were tried togerh,:r by the Iil Senior civil Judge and evidence was adduced in common in t,oth the suits. c.s. No.l l0 of 199(r rvas disrnissed anci o.S. No.37g of 199 r was decrccd with 2 t r'a t \n t6t iI lttt.1rt.1.\ \t itl nl !'t r

3. Aggrieved by decrecing ol thc suit in O'S' No'i78 of 1997' the delendant therein preferred A'S' No'26 of 2012 on the file ol the 1- Additional Chief Judgc, City Civil Court, Secunderabad The same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as Tr'A'S No'684 of 2016' As the parties in both the cases were one and the same and both the cases are tried together, both the appeals are heard together' Pending the above appeals, the sole respondent died and his legal rc'prese ntat ives were brought on record as respondent No 2'to 6 as per the orders in I A' No'3 of 2023 in riccA No.l63 0t2001 dated03'04'2024'

4. For the sake of convenlence, the parlies are hereinalter referred as arrayed before the trial coutl in O'S No' I l0 ol 1996'

5. The case of the plaintiff in O'S' No'll0 of 1996 was that she was thc absolute owner of plot bearing No.41 admeasuring 300 sq'yds', situated in Sy. No-61 and 62 enclosed by a compound wall and a gate situated at Sardar Vallabhai Patel Poor class Co-operative Ilousing Colony, Trimulgherry Village, Hasmatpet Road' Secunderabad' by virtue ofaregisteredsaledeeddocumentNo.g86oflg82registeredbelorethe Sub-Registrar, Marredpally, Secunderabad She purchased the same lrom one Sri Thomas Mathew' who intum purchased the same from his earlier vendor Sri V.A.Sundaram, represented by his GPA holder Sri i (t' I\ n.GRR.l t6t ol .aqt&t 1\ \d 6t! of )ttt6 A.M.Sankaran. In February. 1994 some unsocial elemerrts trie,l to grab the vacant land, as such, the plaintiff constructed a small roc,nt with a door and a compound wall u'ith gate to the suit schedule properly ,o secure the same tiom land grabbers and cncroachers and got her narne printed on both the sides of the sai,l wall. The plaintiff was in peaceful posscssion of thc suit schedule propcrly ever since the date of her purchase in 1982. While so, the def-endant rnadc atternpts to disturb the physica I possessirtn and enjoyrnent of the suit schedule propert)' by the plaintilT. As such, the plaintil'f through hcr hLrsband approached the concenred police on

01.05.1994. The police, on verification of the docunrents advised and wamed the def'endant not to interlere with the physicrl possession and enjoyment of the sr:it schedule property by the plaintil'1'. Hrtwever, the defendant dcliberatcll' filed a petition against the plaintiff vide O.S. No.517 ol 1994 on the flte of the'Xi Assistant Judge, City Civit Court, Secunderabad and obtained an ad-interim injunction order vide [.A No.792 o1'1994 ir.r thc said O.S. The plaintiff, however. flled her ()ounter and written statement and was contesting the above said .;uit. F{owever, to decide the matter conrprehens ively, she filed the suit fc,r declaration and pelpetual injunction .l t ( ( 1 \tr tnr tl !rt|&h 1.\ \ 6r!nl!rt6 -lhe

6. defendant filed written staternent denying that the plaintillwas the owner of the suit schedule property. He contended that he was the sole, absolute and exclusive owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same lbr a valuablc consideration fiom his predecessor in title. The plaintifls vendor had no title to the propefty, thereforc, he could not have conveyed the property validly to the plaintiff. $/hen the plaintiff was trying to trigh-handedly interlere r.vith his possession and enjoyment of the property, he was constrained to file a suit lbl injunction vide O.S. No.5l7 ol 1994. The leamed XI Assistant Judgc granted interim injunction order on 09.05.1994 and thc sarnc' was still subsisting. The delendant purchased the suit plot of land liom Srnt. Raj Kanwar Bai, wife of Sri Har Gopal, represented by her GPA holder Sri F. John Bosco, through a sale deed dated 10.01.1986 registered as docurnent No.64 of 1986 before the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally. The defendant's vendor had obtained permission from the Defence Estate Otficer and the Cornpetent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, prior to sale ol the properly in favour of the defendant vide letter No.ULC/SBD/GLR/Sr No.352(Pt)/ 5ec.2612750 dated 15.07.1985. In fact, the plot No.41, plot No.25 and plot No.74 each admeasuring 300 sq. yds., were allotted to Sri J. Narasirnlu Mudiraj, by virtue of a decree passed in O.S. No.590 of 1958 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 22.04.1959. A h.RR,] ('a 1 \. t 6.t I :nil &1 r 1;.\'o 6u! t'I zttt 6 relerence to which u,as also rnadc in the sale deed exe.:uted in favour ol the defendant. Sli J. Narasirnlu Mudiraj sold all the thr:e plor.s of land to Sri Mohd. Sharluddin through a salc dced dated 09.05.'960 registered as document No.703 ol 1960 belbre the Sub-Registrar, S,:cunderabad. Sri Mohd. Sharfudrlin inturn sold plot No.41 to Smt. Pushpaleela Wo. Sri P. Sreeramulu through a sale deed dated 28.02.1962. Sr:rt. Pushpaleela in tum sold the property to Srnt. Warshi Begum Wo.Sri Mohd: Lateef-ul- Rehman through a sale deed datcd 16.09. 1963. Smt. Wrrshi llegum sold the suit plot of land to Srnt. Raj Kanwar Bai through a sale deed dated I 5. 1 0. 1965. Prior to salc of thc property in lavour of th e clefendant. Smt. Raj Kanu,ar Bai entered into an agreement of sale witli one Sri Ir. John Bosco during July, l9tt5. Thc said F. John Bosco ot:,tained a (ieneral Power of Attonrel, in his favour liorn Raj Kanwar Bai in resltect of plot No.4l. The said GPA was du$rregistered as docunrent No.369i1985 before the Sub-Registlar, Marredpally. The defendan. purc:hased plot No.4l from Sml. Ra.i Kanwal Bai through her General Fou,er ,:f Attomey Sri F.John Bosco on 10.01 .1986 and obtained vacant r)ossession of the property at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Therefore, from the date ol purchase of the property, the defendant had been in possession and prior to that the- defendant's predecessors in title were ln unintr:rrupted possession and enjoyment <,1' the property. 5 ( ( ( 1 \. t t;t,,t 1,,.1, t r t.i \,, :rt 6 ^Nj.t Subsequcnt to purchase of the property, the delendant had apptied lor and obtaincd pcrrnission from Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, lor construction ol compound wall vide permit No.-i078 dated

03.12.1986. In pursuance of the said sanction the Dclendant construcrcd a compound wall around the suit plot of land, erected a gate and kept the same under lock and key. The Defendant also obtained permission lor construction of a house over the said plot of land vide C.B.R.No.2 ( l-8), dated 30.4.1990 and permit No.3019, dated 04.06. t990 from Secunderabad Cantonrrcnt Board. For w,ant of necessary funds, the defendant could not proceed with the construction of house and the defendant sought permission fbr renewal of sanction, which was accorded vide C.ll.R. No.2 (2-11), dared 02.04.1994 and Permit No.1386, dated 29.04.t996. When the defendant was proceeding with the construction, the plaintill sent sorne third parties and illegally intelferd rvith the deferldant's peaceful \ possession and enjoyment of the property. A complaint was lodged with the P.S.l-rirnulgherry, The Police did not intervene stating that the dispute was of civil nature. On account of which the defendant obtaincd injunction in I.A.No.792 of 1994 in O.S.No.517 of 1994 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The defendant denied the allegation that the plaintiff censtructed a small room with a door and a compound wall with a gate. He contended that the said allegation was D/,(;RR,J CCL 1 \o. t 6] ol :oltt&rr.at \i'.6ta ol 201 6 totally false, the constructions standing at thc site ucre rLadc by the defendant. The plaintiff was a land grabber and was tryirg to take lorcible possession. Il the plaintifl- rvas iu posscssion of the propertl, she would have definitely succeeded in vacating the injunction griLnted ln favour of the Defendant by the leamed XI Assistant Judge, r.lity Civil Court, Secunderabad. Il-the defendant Illed a lalsc suit, the pLLintiff would have got it dismissed. Till date, the plaintifT could not succe:d in her attempts either at the site or before the Court. Stre filed the present suit, when there was already a suit pending in respecl olthe same propert) and prayed to dismiss the suit

7. Basing on the above pleadings the trial ,rourt framed the issues as followrs I 2 ) 4 5 Whether the plainti-flf is entitled to declale rhat she is the absolute 6wneft-fthe suit property as frayed fori' Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perrnanent injunction in her t'avour as played for? Whether the Mathew has defendant? predecessor no title at the rlaintilf Thomas as cr:,ntended by the Whether the suit is not maintainable? To whar reliel.l The follorving issues are lramed irf O.S. No.378 of 1997: 8 cLcI \, t6t t4 !,t)&t. !\ \,^r!t'f:tr6 l. Whethcr the ptaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?

2. l-o what reliefl

8. Both the suits rvere clubbed together and a common trial was conducted. The ptaintiff in O.S. No. 110 of 1996 was examined as PW. I and Exs.Al to Al9 r,r,ere marked on her behalL The delendant was examined as DW. I and Exs.B I to B1 1 were marked on his behalf-.

9. On considering the oral irrrd ciocumentary evidence on record, the learned II[-Seniol Cir il Judgc. City Civil Cour-t, Secunderabad disrnissed O.S. No. I I 0 ol 1996 and decreetl C.S. No.378 of 1997 .

10. Aggrieved by the said cgmmon judgment and decree in both the suits, these appeals are pref'erred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. ll0 ol 1996 and the defendant in O.S. No.378 'rf i997. \ I I . Heard Sri Sk. Nazeer, learned counsel representing Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, leamed counsel on record for the appellant and Sri V. Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Narasimha Rao, leamed counsel on record for the respondents. I (((.t \, t6tnf))rltTr t\ \o6t! I)0t6

12. l.earncd counsel fol the appellanrplaintilf' contendr:d that the appellant purchased the suit schedulc propefty in 1982 through registered sale deed dated 10.12.1982 whereas the registered sale rlced in favour of the respondent-cle fendant was subsequent to that ot'the rrppelltrnt. It was dated 10.01.1986. The appellant-plaintifls title and possession of the suit schedule property was very much anterior to the alleged .;ale deed and the alleged ownership of the respondcnt-de t-endant. .l'he tnal court erred in holding that the case of the plaintiff rvould succccd or f'ail on proof of the ownership and title of D.L. Narayana, the vcndor's vcnd<'r of the plaintiff. The dispute invc,lved in the suit ',vas not to llnd out the v rliditl, of the sale deed dated 04.04.1961. The said D.L. Narayana was not rrparty before the court, but the trial court erroneously bent on to enquire ar to who u'as the original owner of the suit plot. The trial court erred in c bserving that the predecessor in title of the defendafit'Sii. J.Narasirnlu Mr,Ji.aj, the original owner, has got better title to the suit property. l'he leam:d Judge, having observed that the photographs marked under Exs.Ati to \16 rrould show the presence of the GPA holder of the plaintiff at the suit rrouse .and lraving found in some photos, the writings on the wall that the and belonged to the plaintiff, erred in observing that the title to the suit lrlot could not be stated to have been established. The trial court l'ailec to see that the plaintiff obtained sanction plan tiom tpd'Cantonrnent Board urder llx.A7 l0 t<< a \.,.t6t al:ttt&r. t\ \'a 63JoI)or6 for construction of room and compound wall. The trial cout failed to appreciate the documents tiled by the ptaintiff and gave importance to the documents filed by the defendant which did not show the title or 'l'he trial court emoneously dismissed the suit possession of the det-endarrt. of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction and allowed the suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No.378 ol 1997 which r,vas only a suit for injunction. The trial court failed ro see rhat the sale deed in supporl of the plaintifls title and possession ol thc suit rrlot was not at all defective nor invalid, but on the other hand, it was quitc anterior to the defendant's title and prayed to allow the appeals.

13. The learned counsel lor the respondent-defendant, on the other hand, supported the judgment of tire trial court and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apcx Court in Union of lndia and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Othersr on the aspect that plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the case set up by the detbndants in a suit for declaration of title and possession. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.A. No.438 of 2017 wherein by order dated I1.08.2023 it was observed that J. Narasimlu Mudiraj was the owner of Sy.Nos.6l and 62 of ' (2014) 2 scc 269 r(( \o r6t nf !r]1&fr..t.\.\n 6rt of)tr6 Trimulgheny Village and he was the predecessor in titl.' to all the parties and that he prepared his own sketch / lay out and dispo:.ed o1- the ltlots to varioi.rs persons. initiatly, he sold plots in the year 1959 ard 1960

14. Now, the points for consideration in these apperls arc: I . Whether the appellant-plaintiff i.; entitled to be declared as o\ ,Tler of the suit schedule properly?

2. Whether the appeltant-plaintiff is entitled lor permanent inj unction?

3. Whether the j udgment of the trial c, ruft in disntissing O.S.'No.ll0 of 1996 and decreeinq O.S No.378 of 1997 is in accordance with law and facts ,rn rccord?

4. To what result?

15. POINT No.1: In a suit for declaration, the burden lies upon the plr intilT to establish his case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of lndia irnd others v. Vasavi Cooper:rtive Housing Society Limited and Others (l supra) held that: "15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration ol titlc. burdcn always lics on the plaintiff to makc out and establislr a clei.r case for granting such a declaration and the wcakness. i l'any. c f the caso set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant rclief tc, the ptaintiff.

17. At the outset, let us exanrinc thc legal position rvil r regarJ to whom thc burden of prool'lics in a suit tbr declarariorr of title and possession. This Court in Maran Mar Basselios Clrtl.rolicos : 2 (CL-1 \'t' 16t aI:t1tt.ttt t\ \t6t!nf)ttt6 v. I'hukalan Paulo Avira reported in AlR I 959 SC l l observed that: "in a suit lor declaration il thc plaintifl.s arc to succeed, they must do so on thc strength of thcir ovvn title."

18. [n Nagar Palika..lind \'. Jag3t Singh. Adr,ocare [(1995) j SCC 4261, this Court held as unclcr: "the onus 10 prove title to the prope[tY in question was on the plaintiff. [n a suit lor ejcctmcnt based on title it was incumbent on thc part of the court ol- appeal first to record a finding on the claim ol title to thc suit land nrade on behalf of the plaintiff. Thc court is bound ro cnquire or investigate that question first befbrc going into an\ othcr question that may arise in a suit."

19. The legal position. their..fore- is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession coLrld succeed only on the strength of its oivn title and that could bc done only b1, adducing sufficicnt cvidcncc to discharge the onus on it. irrespective of the question uhether the dctcndants have proved their case or not. Wc are :ri'tl.' ier.v that even if the title set up by the defendants is fou.,rd against, in the absence of cstablishment ol plaintilf s orvn titlc. plaintitl' rnust be non- suited." ',

16. In the light of the principle reiterated by the Hon'bte Apex Court in the above case, the evidence of the witnesdes needs to be looked into The plaintiff examined herself as PW. I and stated in a similar manner as stated by her in her plaint. She also got rnarked the registered sale deed purchased by her from Thomos Mathew dated 10.02. 1982 as Ex.Al and the registered sale deed of her vendor Thomos Mathew dated 12.04.1978 as Ex.A2. The GPA executed by Sri V.A.Sundaram in favour of A.M Sankaram, who executed Ex.A2 sale deed on behalf of Sundaram was (t t \n td| 4 :tut,ttr 1.r \' rN.,I)ot6 marked as Ex.A3. The registered sale deed dated 01.04 l96l cxecutcd by D.L. Narayana in lavour of V.A. Sundaram was marked as E,x.44, to show the flow ol title of the plaintiff. Exs.A5 and 4,6 were the encunrbrance certificates tbr the period from 01.01 . I982 to 07.07. l9!il and 0l .(t I . 199i to 25.04.1 995. Ex.A.7 was the plan showing the constru,:tion over thc suit plot and sanction givcn by the Cantonment, Secunderab;rd on 06.07.1993 In her cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that shl' did not li lc an1, documentary evidence to show as to-Snv D.I . NarayanrL acquired thc suit schedule prope:ty and became owner ol it. She stated that she rvas not aware whether one J. Narasimlu Yy*i"j,.9,0 the suit Ilot and othe r two plots to one Mohd. SharfLrddiniFihe'lear 1960 and that she cl,d not know whether Narsimlu Mudiraj, Sharfuddin and another purt.hased vast cxtcnt of land, rnade them into plots and sold them to individurls and shc did not know whetherNarsimlu Mudiraj and Sharfuddin did no. sill rhe suit plot to D.L. Narayana under any document.

17. -lhus, though the ptaintiff filed the registered sale rleed ol'her through which she purchased the suit schedule propeny under llx.r\ I and also the link documents of her vendor and that of her vend,rr's vcndor rnarked under Ex.A2 and A.4, admitted that no docurnerlt was filed to show the title of D.L. Narayana over the suit plot. Though she stated in her I4 (tt 1 i ta'.41,eI.15 \n.6u of :016 pleadings that she constructed a compound u'all and a gate around the suit schedule property, but stated in her evidence that her husband and his brother were aware about the construction made in the suit plot and that she had no personal knowledge about the construction.

18. The defendant examined hirnself as DW. l. He also filed the document through which he purchased the propcrty liom Raj Kanwar Bai represented by her GPA holder John Bosco under registered sale deed dated 10.01.1986 marked undet Ex.Bl and thc link documents of his vendor. The registered sale deed document througlh which Raj Kanwar Bai puichased frorn Smt. Warshi tsegcm dated 15.10.1966 was tnarked as E,x.B10 and the link document through which Smt. Warshi Begum purchased the suit schedule property lorm Smt. I)ushpaleela under registered sale deed document dated 16.09.1963 was Inarked as Ex.B9 and the document through which Smt. Pushpaleela purchased the property frorn Mohd. Sharfuddin under registered sale deed document dated

21.02.1962 as Ex.BS and the document through which M. Sharfuddin purchased from J. Narasimlu Mudiraj under registered sale deed document dated 09.05.1960 as Ex.B7.

19. Thus, both the parties filed their title documents as well as the link documents through which their vendors acquired title. However, r5 (at. \r tit tl:u t.<tr 1.t \t oit rl !tt6 E,x.87 - sale deed cxecuted by Sri J. Narasimlu Mudiraj ilr lhvoLrr olMohd. Sharfuddin would disclose that he acquired title to lhe suit schedule property by virtue of a decree passed in O.S. No.593 of 1958 in thc court of the Il Assistant Judge, Citi, Civil Court, Secunderabad on 12.04.1959 The sale deed document would disclose that he was the uhsolute or.t,ner of plot No.25, plot No.41 and plot No.74 each admeasuring 300 sq. yds., situated at Sri \/allabhai Patel Poor Class Colony in Sv Nos.6l and 62, near Hasmatpet Village, Trimulgherry Vitlage, Secunderabad by virtue of '{l ..' . ' ' . the above decrer: in O.S. No.593 of 1958. Whereas the tlocun'rent n.rarked under Ex.A4 registered sale deed exccuted by D.L. Nara,iana irr t'avour of '. xrq,- - the vendor's vendor of the plaintiff would not disclo:.,e as to hos, he acquired right over the suit schedule property i.e. plot No.4 I admeasuring 300 sq. yds., at Sri Vallabhai Patel Poor Class Colony in :iy.No.6l and 62. The second page of Ex.B7 also woi.rld disclose that Sr:i .l.Narasimlu Mudiraj was identified by D.L. Narayana S/o.Lakshmaiah. who was none other than the executant in Ex.A4, along with one C. Narasintlu. ln t:x.A4, the executant I).L. Narayana S/o. Lakshmaiah was iclcntilied by C Narsimlu S/o.Sathaiah. Thus, D.L. Narayana being the identifying u,irness to the sale deed dated 09.05.1960 executed by J. Narasirnlu Mudiraj, is estopped lrorn clairning to be the owner of plot No.4l and to contend that J. Narasimlu Mudiraj was not the owner of the suit pr(,perty. The sale l6 ( | t | \t lar 4 ltttl& tr 1l \. 6t1 ol :t]6 deed marked under Ex.B7 was anterior to that ol Ex.A4. Along with Ex.A4, a plan was also filed into the courl dated 04.04.196l signed by D. L. Narayana. In the said plan also it was mentioned that J. Narasimlu Mudiraj was the founder of the colony and D.L. Narayana was the organizer of the colony. Thus, D.L. Narayana without showing his antecedent right over the property cannot execute a registered sale deed in favour of V.A. Sundararn marked under Ex.A4.

20. Thus, the plaintiff f-ailed to establish rhat she has a valid right over the property as her title is based on a chain of docurnents and failed to prove her vendor's vendor's title. As she is dcpendent on a prior chain of documents, each link must be ";fo'.:'if the vendor,s vendor had no title, then it shall be considered that the vendor had no valid title to pass on to others and consequently, the plaintifls title is also defective. A det-ective or unproven root of title renders ttie whole chain questionable. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to be declared as owner of the property and point No. I is answered accordingly in favour of the respondent-defendant as against the appellant-plaintiff.

21. POINT No.2: Admittedly, the appellant-plainriff filed O.S. No. ll0 of 1996 during the pendency of O.S. No.517 of 1994 filed by the respondent-defendant on t7 Llt 4 \ t6J o1 :0o1&r. 1l \o 6tt nl )016 the file of XII ,\ssistant Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Secundcrabad seeking the relief of perpetual iniunction. t.A. No.792 of 1994 wa:; also filed by the respondent-defi,'ndant herein as plaintiff in the said su t O.S. No.5t7 ol 1994 wherein rn interim injunction was granted and thc sai,l reliel was made absolutc on contest. Thus, the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove that she was in possession of the property during the penden,:y of (1.S. No.5 I 7 of 1994. No petition was filed by her to vacate the ordcrs passed in [.A. No.792 of 1994. The said suit O.S. No.5 l7 of 1994 was transf'erre:d tl'our the courl of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court to the r:ourt of III Senior Civil Judge, City Clivil Courr. Secunderabad and was renumbered as O.S No.378 ol 1997 .'I'he appellant-ptalpti$ failed to state as to when she carne into possession of the propefty subsequent to the ordt:rs passed in t.A No.792 of 1994 in O.S. No.5l7 of 1994. The photograplis filcd by her are not sufficient to prove her possession. The documentai evidence is relevant and she lailed to prove her possession thror-rgl.r docuntentary evidence. As such, she is not entitled tbr the relief of pe4:ctual injunction.

22. The r,:licf of perpetual injunction is also soughr b.v thc appellanr plaintiff as a cronsequential relief to the relief of dec laration. As the appellant-plaintifl' lailed to establish her title over rhe suit schedule property, she is also not entitled for thc con5squential r.elief of perpetual I8 ((( I \t tdt 4 )t' I-< t, 1.\ \' 6\t t l ttn injunction. As such, point No.2 is also answered against the appellanr plaintilf and in favour ofthe respondent-defendant

23. POINT No.3: As the trial court rightly considered all these aspects and disrnisscd the suit filed by the appellant-ptaintiff in O.S. No. ll0 of 1996 and decrced the suit filed by the respondent-defendant in O.S. No.378 of 1997, this Court does not find any iltegality or infirmity in the common judgment passed by the trial court to set aside the same.

24. POINT No.4: ln the result, both the appeals LICCA No. 163 of 200t and Transf-cr A.S. No.684 of 2016 are dismissed confirming the comrnon judgrnent and decree dated 17.01.2000 passed in C.S. No. 110 of 1996 and O.S. No.378 of 1997 by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Sbcunderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII . SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER => To 1. 2. The lll Senior Civil Judg e, City Civil Court, Secundera bad ( with records) One CC to SRl. WASIM AHMED KHAN Advocare [Opucl

3. One CC ro sRt. A. NARAS|MHA RAO Advocate topucl 4. Two CD Copies ,€ HIGH COURT DATED:09/06/2025 +DECREES COMMON JUDGMENT CCCA.No.163 of 2001 AND TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT NO. 684 OF 2916 .--i' :.'1 '. '. :'L : :\'al.- ' ,: t-i '.,:' \{: T u51 + ':irr1'.: t DISMISSING 'f tll, I]o t l L\PPF.AI. SUI.I AND TR. APPEAI, St.iII' WII'HOI.JT CoSTS /z .za,/7,/1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO : 163 0F 2001 Between: Shaheeda Begum Wo. Saleem Younus aged about 35 vears' Occ: Household H.No. 221 "8" Class , n"rgo"prrp.l, Seiuntl'aoao ""APPELLANT Smt. R/o. AND 1 J 4 5 6 MOHD ABDUL ALEEM, (Died Per LRs) Smt Ahmedi Begum, Wo Mohammed Abdul Aleem Aged 64 Occ Household nlo g-j-ZSS, Re"gimental Bazar' Secunderabad M. A. Gaffar, S/o Mohammed Abdul Aleem Aged about.38 years Occ A;i.u* Rlo 9-3-299 Regimental Bazar Secunderabad Smt Rafiya Begum, D/o MA Aleem Wo Hussain Rehman Aged. about 40. i.ii.'O.iH-"rtEnotO Rlo Villa No 5 Street No 42 Occ Etisalat Metro Station Al Ouasis 3 Dubai UAE SmtGhousiaBequm,D/oMAAleemWoMAHakeemAgedabout39years 6'"i ilJriJ*r.-ilo s 5-zss' Regimental Bazar, secunderabad Smt Safiya Begum, D/o MA Aleem W/o Syed Arshad Aged about 36 years il ffiilifJnid viri, ruo'S Sii."t No 42Occ: Etisalal Metro Station Al Quasis 3 Dubai UAE RR2 to 6 are brought on record as Leggl lepgssntatives of Sole Re-spondent l. pL i o' Jt o t-oi zoi+',n I A No 3/t023 iri c'c c'A No 1 63 of 2001 ...RESPONDENTS Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgm"l!. "nd Dec.ee iat"d 17-01-2000 in O.S.No. 110 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the lll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grorno" iit;l'in the App6ai, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case rnd',rpon heiring the arguments of Sri Sk' NAZEER iipniserrrlc Sri wASltu AHMED KHAN, Advocate for the Appeltant and SRI V. HARI HARAN, Senior Counsel for Respondent -l'his Cou( doth ordcr aud dccree as follows l. That thr: appcal bc and hereby is dismissed and 2. ThaL tht:re shall bc uo order as to costs in this appeal. l'o

1. The lll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secundera 2. Two C.D.Copies PPlcel SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO TRAR Kul / I HIGH COURT DATED:09/06/2025 DECREE CCCA.No.163 ot 2001 DISMISSING THE CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ? <./3 /e./ 72g IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT NO: 684 OF 2016 Between: Smt. Shaheeda Begum Wo. Saleem Younus aged about 35 years, Occ: Household R/o. H.No. 221 "8" Class , Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. ...APPELLANT AND l MOHD.ABDUL ALEEM, (Died per LRs) 2 Smt Ahmedi Begum, Wo Mohammed Abdul Aleem Aged 64 Occ Household R/o 9-3-299, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad

3. M. A. Gaffar, S/o Mohammed Abdul Aleem Aged about 38 years Occ Business R/o 9-3-299 Regimental Bazar Secunderabad

4. Smt Rafiya Begum, D/o MA Aleem Wo Hussain Rehman Aged about 40 years Odc Household R/o Villa No 5 Streef No 42 Occ Etisalat Metro Station Al Quasis 3 Dubai UAE

5. Smt Ghousia Begum, D/o M A Aleem Wo M A Hakeem Aged about 39 years Occ Housewife R/o 9-3-299, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad

6. Smt Safiya Begum, D/o MA Aleem Wo Syed Arshad Aged about 36 years Occ Housewife R/o Villa No 5 Street No 42 Occ: Etisalat Metro Station Al Quasis 3 Dubai UAE RR2 to 6 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of Sole Respondent as per C O dt 03 04 2024 inl A No 3/2023 in C C C.A.No '163 of 2001 ...RESPONDENTS Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated1741-2000 in O.S.No. 378 of 1997 on the file of the Courtof the lll Senior Civil Judge, City Givil Court, Secunderabad The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sk. NAZEER REPRESENTING Sri WASIM AHMED KHAN, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI V. HARI HARAN, Senior Counsel for Respondent This Courl doth order and decree as follows

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismisscd and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal

1. The lll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secun 2. Two C.D.Copies Kul / SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO ugryI rEe ISTRAR JseCryr,t 6gPlce2-" M HIGH COURT DATED:09/06/2025 DECREE TR.A.S.No.684 of 2016 DISMISSING THE CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 4 1z- ,to/7 //