Page No. 1 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.
DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT: SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR
III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC XIX ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S. No.400 of 2013
Between :
1. Mr. A. Grant Phillips, S/o. Andrew Philips, aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, H.No.12-1-1314/A/C, North Lalaguda, Shantinagar, Lalaguda, Secunderabad.
2. Mr. G. William Phillips, S/o. Andrew Philips, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.5-37, Janapriya West City, Miyapur, Hyderabad 49.
3. Mirza Abrar Baig, S/o. Alhaj Mirza Shukur Baig, Age 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.2-3-291, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad.
...Plaintiffs
Amended as per Order in IA No.673 of 2015
dt. 21.12.2015
AND
1. Mr. Edward Sunder Raj @ Edward Sunder Korbe, S/o. Henry Korbe, aged 51 years, R/o. Municipal No.2-3-187 (No.78/c Block) Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, M.G. Road, Sec'bad.
2. Mr. Mohammed Abdulwahab, S/o. M. A. Rahman, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Municipal No.2-3-187 (No.78/c Block) Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, M.G. Road, Sec'bad.
Page No. 2 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
3. Master Fathe Mohammed, S/o. Mohammed Abdul Wahab, Aged about 10 years, Occ: Student, Secunderabad, Telangana, Being Minor represented by his Mother and Natural Guardian Mrs. Razia Begum, W/o. Mohammed Abdul Wahab, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.99/C, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad, Telangana
...Defendants
Amended as per Order in IA No.675 of 2015
dt. 21.12.2015.
This Suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Sunil Narsikar, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and M/s. Nandini S. Bilolikar, the learned Advocate for the defendant
No.3 and defendants No.1 & 2 having remained exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
//J U D G M E N T//
1.This suit is filed for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Registered
Gift deed vide document No.438/1994 dt.13.04.1994 executed by
Late Mary Jagadamba and also praying defendants to deliver vacant physical possession of suit schedule property to plaintiffs and also to award mesne profits of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession.
Page No. 3 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are natural brothers and children of Mr.
Andrew Phillips and Theresa Phillips. Theresa Phillips is the elder daughter of Mr. Sabapathi Pillai. Second daughter of Mr. Sabapathi
Pillai viz., Mary Jagadamba, was married to Mr. Devaraj and they had no issues out of their marriage. That during the lifetime of Mrs. Mary
Jagadamba, out of her love and affection towards the plaintiffs herein and considering her close relationship with them, she executed a registered Gift Deed bearing Document No.438/1994 dated 13-04-1994 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and delivered the possession to them. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs developed the property by raising 2nd floor construction, as its absolute owners, and since then held possession of the suit schedule property as rightful owners.
3.That the Defendant No.1 herein filed a Sult in O.S.No.307/2011
before the Learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad
claiming perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein by falsely alleging that he is the adopted son of Late Devaraj and Mary Jagadamba as per the Certificate of Baptism issued by 'Parish Priest' at St. Mary's
Church, S.D. Road, Secunderabad bearing reference No.75/1962. That
Page No. 4 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 he further alleged that Mr. Devraj died in the year 1989 and consequent upon the death of Devraj, his wife Mary Jagadamba lived in the suit schedule property along with him and she expired in the year 2004 and by alleging that the plaintiffs herein played fraud by creating a Gift Deed in respect of the suit schedule property on 23-04-2011, further alleged that, based on the said forged document, the plaintiffs herein attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in enjoyment of the 1st Defendant who is the lawful and absolute owner and was resisted by him. He further alleged that Smt.
Mary Jagadamba never executed any Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiffs herein and Defendant No.1 alone looked after his alleged adoptive parents till their death.
4.That the Defendant No.1 committed a very grave irregularity while filing a sult for bare injunction. It is fundamental principle in law, that whenever any party pleads a rival title within him, the plaintiff needs to seek a relief of declaration of the suit title without which the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for injunction simplicitor. That the Defendant No.1 in the previous suit as plaintiff though categorically pleaded that the registered Gift Deed as executed by Mary Jagadamba in favour of the plaintiffs herein under registered Gift Deed Doc. No.438/1994 dt.13-04-
Page No. 5 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 1994 is a fraudulent document, did not choose to challenge the validity of the said Gift Deed or claimed any relief of declaration of title on the alleged ground of his adoption by Late Devraj and Mary Jagadamba.
5.That the plaintiffs herein were compelled to defend the frivolous litigation initiated by Defendant No.1 in O.S.No. 307/2011 pending on the file of Ist Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The plaintiffs herein filed a written statement and are contesting the same.
While so, the Defendant No.1 herein who was the Plaintiff in the said sult and who obtained interim injunction restraining the plaintiffs herein from interfering with his alleged possession over the suit schedule property by an order dated 02.05.2011, and in utter misuse of the said interim order, the Defendant No.1 along with his henchmen visited the suit schedule property on 11-05-2011 and unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiffs herein from the suit schedule property. Immediately, the plaintiffs reported the same to the Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad on 11-05- 2011 and however the Police failed to take any action on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.307/2011 above referred. The plaintiffs immediately filed application to restrain the Defendant No.1 herein from alienating or encumbering or in any manner changing the
Page No. 6 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 nature of the suit schedule property under an Application in I.A.
No.783/2012.
6.That the Defendant No.1 filed an application on 06-02-2013 in I.A.
80/2013 in O.S.No.307/2011 alleging that he executed a registered GPA in favour of Defendant No.2 herein viz. Md. Abdul Wahab,
S/o. Md. Rahaman bearing Doc.No.25/2011, authorizing him to give evidence and contest the Suit O.S.No.307/2011 filed by him and pending
before Learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and
sought permission of the Court to be represented through the said GPA holder for leading evidence on his behalf and prosecute the suit.
7.That the plaintiffs herein filed a counter opposing the said application in I.A.80/2013 and its order dated 13-03-2013 observed that, if the GPA holder cannot represent the case properly and cannot face cross examination effectively, the same would be fatal to the case of the Defendant No.1 herein and allowed the said application.
8.That the defendant's No.1 GPA holder Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab i.e.,
Defendant No.2 herein filed his evidence affidavit dated 17-04-2013 and marked only one Document as Ex-A1 i.e., CC of Sale Deed
Page No. 7 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
Doc.No.628/1975 dated 24-03-1975 and was cross examined on 11-06- 2013. That the said GPA holder of defendant No.1 herein i.e., Defendant
No.2 clearly admitted in his cross examination about absence of any knowledge on the adoption of the Defendant No.1 herein to Devraj and
Mary Jagadamba or the mode of adoption in the Christianity and admitted that he does not know the actual relationship of Defendant
No.1 herein with Mr. Devraj and Mary Jagadmba prior to adoption and that the Defendant No.1 handed over the possession of the suit property to him in the year 2011 in the month of July/Aug on a monthly rent of
Rs.2,000/- and that no complaint was lodged by the Defendant No.1 herein before the police about the alleged forgery of the Gift Deed except the suit filed by him and that the Defendant's No.1 name was not mutated in the Municipal records and that the electricity bills are not being issued on his name and the plaintiffs herein threatened to disposes the Defendant No.1 in the year 2010 and that the Defendant No.1 was taken in adoption within a month of his birth by Devraj and Mary
Jagadamba and Defendant No.2 does not know the ceremonies involved in Baptism as he is Muslim by religion and denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs herein are the owners of the suit property by virtue of registered Gift Deed and that the Defendant No.1 trespassed forcibly and dispossessed the plaintiffs after obtaining interim injunction.
Page No. 8 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
9.That the contention of the Defendant No.1 that he was adopted by
Late Mr. Devraj and his wife Mary Jagadamba as deposed through his
GPA holder i.e., Defendant No.2 herein as PW1 in the Suit O.S.
No.307/2011, within less than a month of his birth is absolutely incorrect and false and is not supported by any evidence on record. That in relation to the customs attached to Christianity, whoever profess
Christianity religion needs to follow the ceremony of Baptism which is performed by the sponsor or god parents and are popularly called as 'PATRINUS or GOD FATHER'. In other words, Christian religion traditionally identifies the sponsor of any child for Baptism as God Parent (godmother or godfather), while the technical term remains as Sponsor.
That the role of godparent or the sponsor is to assist the persons seeking admission into the Church as well as to assist him during the
Catechumenate and preparing for the sacraments to lead a Christian life.
That in the case of infants, God-parents or his sponsor would ensure to make the profession of faith in the child's name and accepts the responsibility of instructing or nurturing the child towards the faith and ceremony of Baptism was always solemnized by Godparent or a sponsor (male or female), other than the living parents.
Page No. 9 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
10.That the Code of Cannon Law suggests that "in so far as possible, one to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who will assist an adult in
Christian initiation, or, together with the parents, to present an infant at baptism, and will help the baptized to lead a Christian life in harmony with baptism, and fullfil faithfully the obligations connected with it". That the God parent is chosen when a Christian child is baptized with defined role to guide the child to lead spiritual or religious lives and not to be their legal guardian even in the event of natural parental death. To this end, God parents or the sponsors are recognised to have an emotional relation with the god children, but not any legal relationship. That it is pertinent to state that god-children cannot inherit the property of the
God-parent on account of such religious relationship.
11.That the first obligation of the Godfather is to support the parents of the god child with the religious upbringing of the child and the god parents have no custodial rights over their god-children and cannot even act as gift givers on their birthdays or for Christmas etc., As such, the question of inheritance of property rights of god parents who assisted for
Baptism, does not arise at all. That the greatest gift any god-father can give to a child is love, prayers and contribution to their continuous presence as a Christian model of faith. That considering the above
Page No. 10 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 religious practice, a simple entry in the Church records at the time of
Baptism of any child by any god parent or sponsor cannot be construed as an adoption in legal parlance and these god parents or sponsors are often chosen by religious heads for their ability to lead a child through his or her religious education. That the Defendant No.1 herein was thoroughly mistaken as regards the Baptism and by wrongfully considering the same as an adoption without there being any such intention, failed to prove such adoption in legal parlance and failed to establish any legal recognition under Christian Personal Law or otherwise. That such being the case, the proclamation of the Defendant
No.1 herein as an adoptive son of Late Devraj and Mary Jagadamba is misconceived and ill motivated as the Defendant No.1 wanted to knock away the property of Late Mary Jagdamba. That at no point of time, the
Defendant No.1 herein ever exercised his right over the suit schedule property as its owner which is evident from the fact that there was no mutation of his name in the Municipal records or in any records of the
State or Central Government Including the departments of State or
Central Government i.e., Electricity Department or Water Board. That the water meter stands in the names of the plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 is not even aware about the date of death of Late A. Devraj, which he falsely alleged in his plaint as 1989, while Mr. Devraj died on 15-12-1991
Page No. 11 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 at 3.00 P.M in Geeta Nursing Home, Secunderabad. That the defendant
No.1 as plaintiff in the suit O.S No.307/2011 could not even substantiate his possession with Mary Jagadamba during her lifetime over the suit schedule property and thus, it is clearly evident from the contents of
Plaint in O.S. No.307/2011 that the Defendant No.1 herein with the aid of an exparte interim injunction which he obtained in OS.No.307/2011 on 02.05.2011 misused and dispossessed the plaintiffs on 11-05-2011.
12.That in these circumstances, the plaintiffs are now constrained to seek the relief of declaration of title of over suit property which they acquired validly under a registered Gift Deed Doc. No.438/1994 dated 13-04-1994 and in view of their dispossession on 11-05-2011 in the
Defendant No.1 herein entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property in the hands of Defendants as they were unlawfully and illegally dispossessed by the Defendant No.1 through frivolous litigation referred above. That the Defendant No.2 is made a party to the suit in view of his admission as PW-1 in O.S.No.307/2011 on the file of
Learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. That the
Plaintiffs are entitled to claim mesne profits, since the Defendants are in unauthorised occupation of the suit schedule property and depriving the
Plaintiffs thereon the benefit of profits. That the suit schedule property is
Page No. 12 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 a residential home and easily fetches a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- every month considering its potential nature and proximity to the main road and is located in one of the busy and posh localities of Secunderabad and surrounded several business establishments, banks, hospitals and educational institutions. That the Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 herein for their necessities sold the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff No.1 under registered sale deed document No.1684/2014 dated 18/10/2014 for valuable consideration and thereby the Plaintiff No.3 acquired right, title and interest over the suit property. Hence this suit.
13.Written statement filed by the defendant No.3 stated that the suit filed and framed by the plaintiffs ought not to be numbered as the same is not maintainable either in Law or in Facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. That the defendant is not aware about the relationships of the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and their parents etc., and they are put to strict proof thereof. That it is absolutely false and denied that
Late Mrs. Mary Jagadamba out of her love and affection had executed a
Registered Gift Deed and further denies that possession was delivered to plaintiffs, that it is absolutely false they the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 had developed the suit schedule property and they were never in the possession of the suit schedule property. That the defendant No.1 herein
Page No. 13 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 filed a suit vide O.S.No.307 of 2011 before the Learned I Junior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the plaintiff herein as they
tried to interfere with the possession of suit schedule property on 23.04.2011 basing on a forged document, the defendant No.1 is adopted son Late Devraj and Mary Jagadamba adopted as per the Certificate of
Baptism issued by Parish Priest of St. Mary's Church, S.D. Road,
Secunderabad bearing reference No. 75/1962, the defendant No.1 had looked after his adoptive parents till their death and he was in possession of the suit schedule property and this answering defendant was tenant of defendant No.1 in the said property and on 5 December, 2014 the answering defendant purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs.20,18,000/- under a Registered Sale deed vide Document No.3471 of 2014 and since then the answering defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property.
14.That Originally Late Edveesamma was Owner of Suit schedule property and in 1975 she had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1's adoptive father Late A. Devraj,
S/o. Anthony under a Registered Gift Deed bearing No.628 of 1975 and since then the defendant No.1 was in the possession of the suit
Page No. 14 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 schedule property and in 1989 defendant No.1 father died and his mother died in 2004 and the defendant No.1 was enjoying the suit schedule property without any interference from any corner and as the plaintiffs herein tried to interfere in 2011 basing on a forged documents was constrained to file the said suit for Perpetual injunction, it is submitted that the plaintiff's herein filed the above suit declaration and possession nearly 19 years after the alleged document which clearly shows that the above suit is barred by limitation. That defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property and plaintiffs were never in the possession of the suit schedule property.
15.That it is absolutely false and denied that defendant No.1 filed frivolous suit and misused the orders of the Hon'ble I Junior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No. 307 of 2011. That
the plaintiffs were never in the possession of the suit schedule property and the question of dispossessing the plaintiff does not arise and further is false and denied that the plaintiff reported Inspector of
Police, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad and put to strict proof thereof.
Page No. 15 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
16.That it is admitted by the defendant No.1 that he had executed a
General Power of Attorney on 06.05.2011 vide Registered GPA bearing No.25 of 2011 registered before Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad authorizing the defendant No.2 to give evidence and represent on his behalf in the suit filed by him before Learned I Junior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Secunderabad and the second defendant is not entitled to alienate the suit schedule property.
17.That the petition filed by the defendant No.1 to permit his GPA to represent on his behalf was allowed and the said suit was a simple injunction suit restraining the plaintiffs herein with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.1. That the defendant
No.2 herein was examined as PW-1 in the said suit on behalf of defendant No.1 as he is a Registered General Power of Attorney holder and he filed certified copy of the title deeds and all other allegations mentioned are denied and the plaintiffs are par to strict proof thereof.
18.That it is admitted that the defendant No.1 was the adopted son of Late Mr. Devraj and his wife Mary Jagadamba and his entire records shows the same. That a God parents could perform the Baptismal
Page No. 16 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 ceremony of a person and the God parents are chosen by natural parent, the principal responsibility of a God parents is to give witness to the Catholic faith by his words and actions, he must be ready to accept the responsibility of being a part of the godchild's life for the remaining of his/her life. The God parents must be available to his godchild on a continuous basis, he must have a special interest in the spiritual growth in the child, the 1st defendant was born on 22.03.1962 and on 02.04.1962 he has taken Baptism on that he was infant and a certificate of Baptism was issued by St. Mary's Church, 43, S.D. Road, Secunderabad vide Ref. No. 76/62 and it clearly shows that Late Mr. Devraj and Late Mrs. Jagdamba are his God Parents and since then the 1st defendant was under care custody of his God parents and it is undisputed facts that the Late Devraj and Jagdamba are not having natural children and all the records of the 1st defendant shows that Late Devraj is his father and Late Devraj, Late
Jagdamba and defendant No.1 were in the possession of the suit schedule property without any interference from any corner.
19.That the defendant No.1 was under care and custody of Late
Mr. Devraj and Mrs. Jagdamba as their son and the plaintiff herein by playing fraud created a forged gift deed in their favour in respect of
Page No. 17 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 suit schedule property allegedly executed by the mother of the 1 defendant vide document bearing No.438/1994 dated 13.04.1994 and basing on the said forged document, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 herein tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the defendant No.1 which was successfully resisted by the defendant No.1 the defendant No.1 knowing pretty will that gift deed is forged document had sent the admitted signature of his mother on a cheque bearing No. 673234 dt. 09.02.1993 drawn on
Syndicate Bank, R.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad along with the copy of alleged gift deed to the handwriting expert Sri C.S.R. Murthy, who is a retired Government examiner of questioned documents,
Government of India, Hyderabad. The said handwriting expert by his opinion report dt. 06.05.2009 has categorically and specifically opined that the signatures of Smt. Mary Jagdamba on the alleged gift deed are not tallying with the signature on the said cheque, it is pertinent to mention here that the said cheque was signed by
Smt. Mary Jagdamba when she was alive and which was passed by the banker, the defendant No.1 having respect towards his father has not mutated his name in municipal records, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 under the guise of forged gift deed had managed the GHMC Officials and obtained tax receipts of the suit schedule property, it is well known
Page No. 18 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
principal that mere payment of tax would not create any title, the
electricity are still issuing the bills in the name of 1ª defendant's father, the defendant No.1 had look after his parents till their death.
20.That the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are never in the possession of the suit schedule property, and claiming the relief of declaration and possession nearly after 19 years (even though not admitting the alleged forged document) is barred by limitation and the above suit ought not to be numbered as the suit is time barred suit. The plaintiff is not entitled for any mense profit as he is claiming the suit schedule property through a forged created gift deed. That the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as he approached this Court with unclean hands.
That no cause of action aroused for filing the above suit, that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit schedule property on any point of time, once in the year 2011 they tried to interfere which was restrained by an Order of Learned I Junior Civil Judge City Civil
Court, Secunderabad, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief as the suit is time barred suit.
21.That the plaintiff's 1 & 2 were never in the possession of the suit schedule property and the question of disposing them on 11.05.2011
Page No. 19 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 does not arise, the plaintiffs are put to strict proof that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and as they are claiming under a forged document of 1994 the suit is hopelessly barred by
Limitation. That Originally one Smt. Ediveshamma was owner of the suit schedule properly and she had gifted the same to the father of the defendant No.1 herein Late Devraj and he along with his wife and defendant No.1 were in possession of the suit schedule property till their death and the defendant No.1 was in possession till July/August, 2011 and let out the same to Defendant No.2 herein on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and he was in possession of the suit schedule property since then and in December, 2014 the defendant No.1 offered to sell suit schedule property and this defendant had purchased the same for a valuable sale consideration of
Rs.20,18,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document
No.3471 of 2014 duly registered with Joint Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad
R.O. on 05.12.2014.
22.That the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim over the suit schedule property as they are claiming under a forged gift deed and further not having any title had sold to the third Plaintiff by misrepresenting that they are in possession, it is clear from the affidavit filed by the third
Page No. 20 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 plaintiff that he is interested to continue the litigation by stepping into the shoes of Plaintiffs No.1 & 2. That they are possession of the suit schedule property having purchased from the right owner and are having full, right and title over the suit schedule property and none other is having any rights over the suit property. Hence prayed to
Dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
23.The issues for consideration are :-
1. Whether Mary Jagadamba executed registered Gift Deed dt.13.04.1994 in favour of plaintiffs; if so whether she got absolute rights over schedule property to gift the same?
2. Whether plaintiffs No.1 & 2 got valid title under registered Gift
Deed; if so whether they are entitled to relief of declaration as prayed?
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of Plaint schedule property from defendants?
4. Whether defendant No.3 substantiated his title and its validity under registered sale deed in document No.3471/2014 dt.05.12.2014 executed by defendant No.1?
5. To what relief?
Page No. 21 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
24. During trial Plaintiff No.3 is examined as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. Further plaintiff No.1 was examined as
PW2 and exhibited documents Ex.A12. Further, two more documents were marked on behalf of plaintiffs i.e., Ex.A13 through PW1 and
Ex.A14 during cross examination of DW1. On the other hand defendant No.3's mother (Natural Guardian) by name Razia Begum was examined as DW1 and she got exhibited documents Ex.B1 to
Ex.B5.
25. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that Late Mary Jagadamba who is their near relative died issueless and before her death she has executed Registered Gift Deed gifting the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs No.1 & 2. Since, then there are enjoying the possession of the suit schedule property without any interruption.
However, later in the year 2011 the defendant No.1 herein filed suit in
OS. No.307 of 2011 on the file of Learned I Junior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Secunderabad claiming perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein and alleging the he is the adopted son of Late Devraj and Late Mary Jagadamba as per the certificate of Baptism issued by parish priest at St. Mary's Church, S. D. Road, Secunderabad bearing reference No.75/1962. However, such suit was dismissed against the
Page No. 22 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 defendant No.1 herein for the reason that without seeking for declaration of title over the suit property, the defendant No.1 herein could not seek the relief of perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein. Since the title of the plaintiffs herein over the suit schedule property was disputed by defendant No.1 herein, the plaintiffs with no other go had to file the present suit for declaration and recovery of vacant possession from the defendants. To establish the above claim, plaintiff No.2 filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint and is examined as PW1 and in his chief examination affidavit he exhibited documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. Ex.A1 is the copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No.438/1994
dated 10.04.1994, Ex.A2 is the copy of Read. Gift Deed
Doc. No.628/1975 in favour of Mr. Late Devraj dated 24-3-1975,
Ex.A3 is the Copy of Death Certificate of Late A. Devaraj dated 5-12- 1991, Ex.A4 is the Copy of Mutation Proceeding issued by
MCH/Sec'bad in favour of plaintiffs dated 15-07-2004, Ex.A5 is the
Copy of Death Certificate of Mary Devraj dt.7-5-2004, Ex.A6 is the
Copy of Publication caused by the plaintiffs in the Hindu Daily informing about the classification of title dated 31-7-2006, Ex.A7 is the Copy of Property tax for the year 2006-07, Ex.A8 is the Copy of
Receipt issued by Baptist Church confirming booking of Hearse dated
Page No. 23 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 8-5-2004, Ex.A9 is the Copy of Consumer card issued by HMWSS
Board, Ex.A10 is the Copy of Bills issued by HMWSS Board dated 04-12.2006 and Ex.A11 is the Copy of Bills issued by HMWSS Board
dated 17-2-2011. Further, the purchaser of the suit schedule
property from plaintiffs No.1 & 2 i.e., plaintiff No.3 also examined as
PW2 and he filed his chief examination affidavit supporting the version of PW1 and he got exhibited documents Ex.A12. Further, PW1 got exhibited documents Ex.A13 & Ex.A14 which are certified copies of Judgment and Decree in OS. No.307 of 2011.
26.On the other hand, it is the defence of defendant No.3 that the suit schedule property belongs to Late Mary Jagadamba who adopted the defendant No.1 and on demise of Mary Jagadamba and her husband, the suit schedule property was inherited by defendant No.1.
Defendant No.2 who is father of Defendant No.3 was a tenant in the suit schedule property and subsequently defendant No.1 offered for sale of suit schedule property and defendant No.3 with his mother purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 by paying valid sale consideration. It is further alleged by defendant No.3 represented by his natural mother that the Gift deed basing on which the suit is filed by plaintiffs was forged and the signatures on the Gift
Page No. 24 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 deed does not belong to Mary Jagadamba. It is the claim of the defendant No.3 that defendant No.1 during his life time had applied for expert opinion on the disputed signatures of the Mary Jagadamba in the Gift deed and the admitted signatures of Mary Jagadamba and the expert has opined that the disputed signatures as shown in the
Gift Deed does not belong to the person whose admitted signatures has been sent along with disputed signatures for expert opinion.
Thus, the mother of defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and has filed chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the written statement and got exhibited the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. Ex.B1 is the original expert hand writing opinion dated.06.05.2009 (subject to objection raised by learned counsel for plaintiff as to subsequent events which occurred after passing of orders in I.A. No.19/2023, dt.22.08.2023), Ex.B2 is the Certified Copy of DTHE Sale Deed
Doc. No.705 of 2011, dt. 16.05.2011, Ex.B3 is the copy of cancellation of registered sale deed documents No.1133 of 2013, Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed Doc. No.3471 of 2014 (subject to objection raised by learned counsel for plaintiff as to subsequent events which occurred after passing of orders in I.A. No.19/2023, dt.
22.8.2023) and Ex. B5 is the certified copy of the original complaint filed with JBAR Council of Telangana (subject to objection raised by
Page No. 25 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 learned counsel for plaintiff as to subsequent events which occurred after passing of orders in I.A. NO. 19/2023, dt. 22.8.2023).
27.Learned counsel for defendant No.3 filed following citation.
guided this court with the observations of the Hon'ble Courts in the following citations:
➔ Smriti Debbarama (Dead) Through Legal Vs. Prabha Ranjan
Debbarama and others ➔ Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker Vs. Pranjivandas Maganlal
Thakker and others ➔ State of Punjab and others Vs. Gursharan Singh and others.
28.Upon perusal of evidence on record and on hearing arguments of both learned counsels and on perusal of citations filed and on going through the observations of the Hon’ble Courts in these decisions, I found that none of the parties are disputing about the real owner of the suit schedule property i.e., husband of Mary Jagadamba and on demise of Devraj, the suit schedule property was inherited by Mary
Jagadamba who died subsequently. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that
Mary Jagadamba during her life time has executed the Gift Deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 and 2 whereas it is the claim of the defendant
Page No. 26 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
No.1 that such Gift Deed was forged by the plaintiffs and defendant
No.1 being adopted son of Mary Jagadamba inherited the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 subsequently sold such property to defendant No.3. On perusal of documents marked through
PW1, I found that Ex.A1 is shown as certified photo copy of Gift Deed in document No.438 of 1994 under which Mary Jagadamba, W/o. Late
Devraj executed a Gift deed in favour of A. Grant Phillips and G.
William Phillips for a suit schedule property. The other documents are the supporting documents of the suit schedule property and the death certificates of late A. Devraj and late Mary Jagadamba. The plaintiffs are claiming possession and ownership of the suit schedule property basing on such Gift settlement deed. Now it is the defence taken by the defendant No.3 that such Gift settlement deed is forged because the signatures on Registered Gift settlement Deed which are marked as Q1 to Q15 as disputed does not belong to Mary Jagadamba as can be seen on the cheque signed by Mary Jagadamba and no objection certificate containing admitted signature of Mary Jagadamba which are marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and sent to the Expert opinion. On perusal of Ex.B1, I found that the hand writing expert has opined that the admitted signatures which are marked as Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 were not signed by the same person who has signed the disputed signatures on
Page No. 27 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
Registered Gift Deed marked as Q1 to Q15. Though Ex.B1 was marked through DW1 to show that the hand writing expert has opined that the disputed signatures on the registered Gift settlement deed of
Mary Jagadamba does not match with her admitted signatures which were marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 but the admitted signatures documents and also disputed signatures documents were not filed by
DW1. This court without perusal of the admitted signature documents and the disputed signature documents cannot rely solely only upon the hand writing expert opinion. Further, this court is of the view that while the expert's opinion can be valuable but they are not necessarily conclusive and should be considered along with other evidence in the case. Further this court is not bound to accept the expert's opinion and can consider other evidence to reach to a conclusion. Therefore, this court is constrained to not to rely upon
Ex.B1 i.e., hand writing expert opinion without there being on record the documents basing on which expert has given the opinion and the even the defendant No.3 failed to examine such expert before the court.
29.Now coming to the defence of defendant No.3 that the defendant
No.1 was the adopted son of Late Mary Jagadamba and on her demise
Page No. 28 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 the suit schedule property which undisputedly belong to Mary
Jagadamba was inherited by defendant No.1 before selling such property to defendant No.3. No documentary evidence or oral evidence has been led by defendant No.3 to establish such disputed fact of adoption of defendant No.1 by late Mary Jagadamba and her husband. The plaintiffs in their plaint have elaborately explained about the procedure of baptism, in that they have also explained about God parent which would be God mother or God father or even both and such God parent is not the natural parent. The defendant
No.3 also mentioned in his written statement that Late Mary
Jagadamba and her husband A. Devraj were God Parents of defendant
No.1 when he was Baptized. Such God parents does not mean that they have adopted defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 is their adoptive son who would in future inherit the property of the adoptive parents. Thus, it is found that Late A. Devraj and his wife Late Mary
Jagadamba were the God parents of defendant No.1 but not adoptive parents of defendant No.1. On demise of A. Devraj and Mary
Jagadamba their property cannot be inherited by the defendant No.1 without there being any legal document written by late A. Devraj and late Mary Jagadamba such as will and Gift Deed.
Page No. 29 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
30.Now coming to the Gift Deed basing on which the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration, I found that under Ex.A1 Late Mary
Jagadamba has transferred the suit schedule property being the
Donor in favour of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 in the year 1994 and since then the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession of suit schedule property.
31.Answer to Issue No.1 : As discussed above, this Court cannot rely upon handwriting expert opinion without there being the documents on record basing on which handwriting expert has given his opinion and on the other hand the plaintiffs have filed certified copy of registered gift deed executed by Mary Jagadamba in their favour for the suit schedule property, I am view that Late Mary
Jagadamba on 13.04.1994 has executed Registered Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiffs and prior to that Late Mary Jagadamba got absolute rights over the suit schedule property to Gift the same because she inherited the same from her husband and there being issue less. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
32.Answer to Issue No.2 : The plaintiffs on execution of registered Gift deed by Mary Jagadamba not only inherits the property but also gets valid title for the suit schedule property and
Page No. 30 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013 thus they are entitled for the relief of declaration as owners as prayed for. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
33.Answer to Issue No.3 : It is the claim of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 during previous court proceedings got them disposed from suit schedule property and when this court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property under the Gift Deed, I am of view that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule property from the defendants. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
34.Answer to Issue No.4 : It is the claim of the defendant No.3 that he and his mother has purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1 on 05.12.2014 vide sale deed in document No.347 of 2014. However, such date is subsequent to filing of the present suit and during the pendency of the present suit and thus where the property was already in dispute for declaration of tile filed by the plaintiffs herein, the defendant No.3 could not get title and validity under such Sale Deed executed during the pendency of this suit.
Hence, issue No.4 is answered against the defendant No.3 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Page No. 31 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
In the result, the suit of plaintiffs is decreed with costs declaring plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are lawful and absolute owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered Gift deed document
No.438 of 1994 dt.13.04.1994 executed by Late Mary Jagadamba and also directing the defendants to deliver vacant and physical possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Since the defendant No.3 is in possession of suit schedule property which belongs to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are also entitled for mesne profits of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of suit till date of delivering the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd Day of December 2025.)
III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC XIX ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.
Page No. 32 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW1: Mirza Abrar BaigDW1: Razia Begum PW2: A. Grant Phillips
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.A1 is the copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No.438/1994 dated 10.04.1994.
Ex.A2 is the copy of Regd. Gift Deed Doc. No.628/1975 in favour of Mr. Late Devraj dated 24-3-1975.
Ex.A3 is the Copy of Death Certificate of Late A. Devaraj dated 5-12-1991.
Ex.A4 is the Copy of Mutation Proceeding issued by MCH/Sec'bad in favour of plaintiffs dated 15-07-2004.
Ex.A5 is the Copy of Death Certificate of Mary Devraj dt.7-5-2004.
Ex.A6 is the Copy of Publication caused by the plaintiffs in the Hindu Daily informing about the classification of title dated 31-7-2006.
Ex.A7 is the Copy of Property tax for the year 2006-07.
Ex.A8 is the Copy of Receipt issued by Baptist Church confirming booking of Hearse dated 8-5-2004.
Ex.A9 is the Copy of Consumer card issued by HMWSS Board.
Ex.A10 is the Copy of Bills issued by HMWSS Board dated 04-12.2006.
Ex.A11 is the Copy of Bills issued by HMWSS Board dated 17-2-2011.
Ex.A12 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.1684/2014, dt.18.10.2014.
Ex.A13 is the certified copy of Judgment and Decree in OS. No.307 of 2011 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
Ex.A14 is the photograph of suit schedule property along with pendrive. (through DW1)
Page No. 33 of 33O.S. No.400 of 2013
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS :
Ex.B1 is the original expert hand writing opinion dated.06.05.2009 (subject to objection raised by learned counsel for plaintiff as to subsequent events which occurred after passing of orders in I.A. No.19/2023, dt.22.08.2023).
Ex.B2 is the Certified Copy of DTHE Sale Deed Doc. No.705 of 2011,
dt. 16.05.2011.
Ex.B3 is the copy of cancellation of registered sale deed documents No.1133 of 2013.
Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed Doc. No.3471 of 2014 (subject to objection raised by learned counsel for plaintiff as to subsequent events which occurred after passing of orders in I.A. No.19/2023, dt. 22.8.2023).
Ex.B5 is the certified copy of the original complaint filed with JBAR Council of Telangana (subject to objection raised by learned counsel for plaintiff as to subsequent events which occurred after passing of orders in I.A. No. 19/2023, dt. 22.8.2023).
III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC XIX ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.