IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD
Present: Sri Y.Aravind Reddy, B.Sc., LL.B., Prl. District Judge, Nizamabad
Wednesday, the 30th day of December, 2015
A.S. No. 48 of 2012
Between:
Vadyala Chandrashekar Reddy S/o. Ramchandra Reddy, aged 49 years, Occ: Advocate R/o. Goopanpally village Mandal and Dist. Nizamabad.
..Appellant
A n d
1. Abdul Rahman S/o. Shaik Hussain, aged 75 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Near Labour Office, Barkatpura, Nizamabad.
2. Mohd. Anees S/o. Hosle Mohd. Ismail, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Barkatpura, Nizamabad. (Died represented by R6 to R10)
3. Smt. Amina W/o. Khamaruddin, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Barkatpura, Nizamabad.
4. Smt. Shareen W/o. Hadi Bhai, aged about 51 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Barkatpura, Nizamabad.
5. Smt.Dilshad W/o. Noor Mohammed, aged about 51 years, Occ: House hold.
6. Smt. Sabeena Parveen W/o. Mohd. Anees, aged about 33 years, Occ: Household.
7. Smt. Nishat Farheen D/o. Mohd. Aees, aged about 33 years, Occ: Household.
8. Smt. Tasneen Fatima D/o. Mohd. Anees, aged about 28 years, Occ: Student.
9. Mohd. Amar Ahmed S/o. Mohd. Anees, aged about 24 years, Occ: Student.
10. Smt. Afzal Been W/o. Alhah Mohd. Ismail, aged about 80 years, Occ: Household. All are residents of Barkatpura H.No.9-2-80, Nizamabad, now residing at Khoja colony, Nizamabad.
..Respondents
This appeal coming before me on 8.9.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Sangameshwar Rao, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Mohammad Abdul Saleem, Advocate for the respondents and having heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court makes the following:
-: J U D G M E N T:-
1. The Appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment in
O.S No.507 of 2002 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Nizamabad filed this
appeal seeking relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property 2 A.S.No.48 of 2012 and the brief facts in the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff has purchased land in Sy.No.3222/A admeasuring Ac 1-19 guntas situated at Nizamabad vide registered sale deed document No.1884/2002 dated 7.3.2002 for sale consideration of
Rs.1,92,500/- from one Smt.Asgari Begum W/o Late Sri Syed Taher. The plaintiff submits that he has entered into an agreement of sale through GPA holder of Asgari Begum for purchase of property at Rs.1,92,500/- and paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and agreed to pay the balance of
Rs.92,500/- on the date of registration of sale deed and Smt.Asgari Begum being old lady of 90 years, she has appointed GPA Mohammad
Saleemuddin Ahmed and the GPA holder has executed agreement of sale on behalf of Asgari Begum and the plaintiff has paid the remaining amount of
Rs.92,500/- to her sole legal heir and he executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff became owner and possessor of the suit property. Thereafter, Asgari Begum expired on 20.06.1999 and as such, her sole legal heir Mohd.Mazher Ali Khan has executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2002 in respect of the schedule land and in spite of it, the defendants who are no way concerned with the said land, came to the suit land on 8.10.2002 and tried to interfere the same upon which the plaintiff and the neighbours of the land resisted the defendants and the defendants went away stating that they will come again with more force and dispossess the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction.
2. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 denied the averments in the plaint and filed written statement as follows:
They submit that neither Asgari Begum had any right to sell the suit land nor any such alleged agreement taken place between them in respect of 3 A.S.No.48 of 2012 suit land and the said agreement of sale dated 8.5.1992 is fabricated document brought into existence for the purpose of grabbing the land of the defendants. Further, they submit that the registered sale deed bearing document No.1884/2002 is fabricated document. They submit that the real facts are that Smt.Asgari Begum W/o Late Syed Taher Ali
R/o Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac 2-15 gts in Sy.No.3222 of Nizamabad shivar and out of the said land, she sold an extent of AC 0-36 gts. in favour of
Smt.Nallaveli Gangavva W/o Narsimlu r/o Gurbabnadi, Nizamabad under the registered sale deed document No.2719/1981. Smt.Nallavelli Gangavva was in actual possession of an extent of Ac 0-33 gts. of land and out of the said land, Gangavva sold an extent of 9 guntas of land to the defendant
No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 26.08.1986 and by receiving the deficit stamp duty, it has been subsequently registered as document
No.945/1989 at the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Nizamabad. Thereafter,
Gangavva, out of the remaining land sold an extent of 8 guntas of land in favour of Smt.Dilshad i.e. the defendant No.5 under the registered sale deed dated 1.9.1986 and by receiving deficit stamp duty, it has been registered as document No.946/1989 in the office of Joint Sub Registrar,
Nizamabad and thereafter, she sold an extent of 8 gts of land in favour of defendant No.4 under the registered sale deed dated 12.09.1986 and by receiving deficit stamp duty, it has been subsequently registered as document No.947/1989 at the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Nizamabad.
The remaining extent of Ac 0-08 ½ gts. of land was purchased by the defendants 3 and 5 jointly from Nallavelli Gangavva under the sale deed
dated 29.1.1987 and by receiving the deficit stamp duty it has been
subsequently registered as document No.958/1989 at the office of the Joint 4 A.S.No.48 of 2012
Sub Registrar, Nizamabad. Thus the defendant No. 3 to 5 have purchased the total extent of 33 ½ gts. of land in Sy No.3222 with an intention to establish some commercial establishments and further submitted that out of the total extent of the land in Sy No.3222, an extent of ac 0.32 gts, on
Kaloor, 80 ft wide road side is purchased by the defendant No.2 through defendant No.1 by name Abdul Rahman, GPA of Asgari Begum and a sale deed was also executed in his favour and out of the remaining extent of said land in Sy No.3222, an extent of 35 guntas was purchased by one Sri
Marampally Sailoo @ Ganta Sayanna r/o Yellammagutta, Nizamabad from
Asgari Begum under the registered sale deed dated 25.7.1980 at the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Nizamabad and subsequently the said extent of 35 gts is purchased by one Sri Parsi Shashank s/o P.Laxman Rao under the registered sale deed document No.2841/2001 dated 26.4.2001 and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
3. Thereafter the defendants 1 and 2 filed additional written statement which was adopted by the defendants 3 and 5 to the effect that the contention of the plaintiff that Mohammad Saleemuddin Ahmed as GPA of Asgari Begum was conferred any power to sell her land is absolutely false and the alleged agreement of sale dated 8.5.1992 is a sham document created by the plaintiff for the purpose of false claim. They submit that the proceedings in O.S No.22 of 1988 are all false and malafide proceedings.
They further submit that the decree and the consequential proceedings in the E.P are all the records created for some malafide motives without any right, title and possession over the suit land and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
5 A.S.No.48 of 2012
4. On the pleadings of both parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
1.Whether Asgari Begum is the owner of the property, whether he, having entered into agreement of sale with plaintiff alienated the property through G.P.A, whether after their death, her legal heir executed sale deed as claimed?
2.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property on the date of suit?
3.Whether the defendants found in such possession on the date of cause of action as claimed?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
5.To what relief?
5. Thereafter, the following additional issues were framed basing on subsequent pleadings
1.Whether the husband of late Asgari Begum executed a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration?
2.Whether the defendant No.2 purchased the land in Sy.No.3222 to an extent of Ac 0-32 gts from Smt.Asgari Begum through her GPA holder namely Sri Abdul Rahman?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs 1 to 7 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 are marked.
7. After hearing both counsel and the material on record, the trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
The Judgment and decree dated 6.7.2012 dismissing the O.S No.507 of 2002 passed by the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad is not sustainable in law and is contrary to the merits of the case. He submits that the judgment is against the probabilities of the case, evidence on record 6 A.S.No.48 of 2012 and legal presumptions as such, it is liable to be set aside. The appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 in the right perspective and reached at erroneous conclusion. He submits that he has filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.1-19 gts in Sy No.3222/A. He submits that he has entered into agreement of sale with his vendor by name Asgari
Begum on 08.05.1992 to purchase the suit schedule property along with other property vide Ex.A12 for a consideration of Rs.1,92,500/- and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance at the time of execution of registered sale deed and as the vendor was not in possession of the property by the time of agreement and it was subject matter of OS
No.22 of 1988, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, which was filed by his vendor seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession which was decreed on 27.11.1990, certified copy of judgment and decree is marked as Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 and thereafter the vendor filed
Execution Proceedings vide Ex.A8 and the Bailiff of the Court delivered possession of the property to the vendor of the appellant vide his report under Ex.A11 dated 27.5.1993 and thereafter his vendor died on 20.6.1999 as can be seen from Ex.A4 death certificate and then the sole legal heir of the vendor executed sale deed under Ex.A1 dated 7.3.2012 and delivered possession of the property to the appellant and since then the appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The appellant submits that when the respondent No.1 interfered with his possession, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction wherein the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 got filed petitioner and got impleaded as parties. The appellant submits that the respondents claim is that Azgari Begum and K.Bhumaiah executed GPA in 7 A.S.No.48 of 2012 favour of the first respondent authorizing him to sell 32 guntas of land in
Sy No.3222 under Ex.B1 dated 24.11.1991 and Nallavalli Gangavva was shown to be the purchaser of 36 gts in the suit survey number through registered sale deed under Ex.B2. The defendants 3 to 5 claimed that each of them have separately purchased the total extent from Nallavelli
Gangavva under Ex.B3 to Ex.B5 under the registered sale deeds and Ex.B6 is the registered sale deed dated 25.7.1980 allegedly executed by Asgari
Begum for an extent of Ac 0-35 gts in Sy.No.3222 in favour of Marampalli
Sailu who in turn shown to have conveyed the extent of Ac 0-35 gts in
Sy No.3222/AA to one Parsi Sheshank under Ex.B7. Ex.B8 to Ex.B10 are the pahanis for the year 1980-81, 1992-92. The appellant submits that
Ex.B11 is the document alleged to be the sale deed dated 27.09.1994 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. He submits that during the pendency of the suit, he has filed I.A No.23 of 2012 disputing the execution of Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 by late Asgari Begum and referred this document to the hand writing expert for opinion. But the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court observing that “ the issue of possession by the petitioner and interference by the respondents fall directly for adjudication in a suit for permanent injunction and the question of title of the petitioner and respondents to the suit schedule property does not fall directly for consideration before this Court. Under such scenario to ascertain the alleged signature of Smt.Asghari Begum on documents bearing No.2219/81 and 221/88 with alleged signatures of Smt.Asgari
Begum on plaint in O.S No.22/88 on the file of Subordinate Judge,
Nizamabad to prove or disprove title of parties vis-à-vis the suit schedule property is beyond the scope and ambit for consideration for adjudication of this suit in which this petition is pressed into service which will not serve any purpose”.
8 A.S.No.48 of 2012
8. He submits that the trial Court under the impugned judgment relied on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 observing that DW6 and DW7 stated that those documents were executed in their presence etc. He submits that the trial
Court also relied on the sale deed executed by Nallavelli Gangavva in favour of D3 to D5. He submits that the findings of the trial court in orders in I.A No.23/2012 is altogether conflicting and contrary to its finding in the judgment by considering title based on disputed document i.e. Ex.B1 and
Ex.B2 in favour of the respondent and it cannot be sustained in law. He submits that the findings of the trail court is erroneous on the ground that it denied the appellant to disprove Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in favour of the respondent, observing that proving and disproving the title of the parties is beyond the scope and ambit for consideration for adjudication of the suit and on the other hand, volte-face by considering those documents of title in favour the respondents. The denial of opportunity to the appellant and taking contrary view in favour of the defendants resulted in miscarriage of justice.
9. The appellant submits that the Trial Court observed that the appellant admitted Ex.B1 was executed earlier to the agreement in his favour is incorrect. He submits that Ex.B1 was shown to him, it was said that the date contained on it was earlier and he never admitted its execution by Asgari Begum and on the other hand, he disputed Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 by
Asgari Begum and sought to send those documents to handwriting expert.
He submits that the findings of the Court that examination of sole legal heir of Asgari Begum by name Mazhar Ali was necessary, is not tenable. He submits that Ex.B11 was executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2 conveying 32 guntas of land in Sy No.3222 wherein it was stated that respondent No.2 was already in possession of the land and the 9 A.S.No.48 of 2012 said document was not registered and not stamped with stamp duty and it was only a Xerox copy as such the trial court ought not have marked it. He submits that Bhumaiah who is no way concerned with title or right over the land in Sy No.3222 is made a party in Ex.A1 without cogent reasons. He submits that in the evidence of DWs 2 to 5, it was elicited that they are not aware about the particulars of transaction and purchase of land, its survey numbers, the boundaries of their land or any other particulars. Moreover, when Nallavelli Ganavva did not derive title or possession under Ex.B2, for the land in Sy No.3222, the question of her conveying the property does not arise. He submits that his vendor Asgari Begum was not in possession of the suit land and other land as such, she filed the suit in OS No.22/1099 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and she got possession of the land and other land on 27.05.1993 under the Execution Warrant under
Ex.A11 and therefore, it cannot be said that Asgari Begum was in possession of the land and executed Ex.B1, Ex.B2 in favour of Abdul
Rahman i.e. the respondent No.1, K.Bhumaiah and Nallavelli Gangavva in the years 1981 and 1988. The appellant submits that Nallavelli Nasimulu who is husband of Nallavaelli Gangavva is defendant No.3 in O.S No.22 of 1988 and if Asgari Begum had sold the land to Nallavelli Gangavva in the year 1981 under Ex.B2, there was no necessity for her to file the suit in
O.S No.22 of 1988 in respect of the same land and therefore, the findings of
the trial court is ridiculous. The appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the evidence and the decree passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in O.S No.22 of 1988 and delivery of
possession of the property to Asgari Begum through the Bailiff. He submits that the delay caused in execution of registered sale deed in favour of the appellant cannot deprive him possession, right or title over the suit property.
10 A.S.No.48 of 2012
He submits that Ex.B10 Pahani for the year 1991-92 shows Asgari Begum as pattedar of Ac 1-19 gts of land in Sy No.2322/A and Ex.A3 Pahani for the year 2001-02 shows the appellant as pattadar and possessor of the same extent of land in the same survey number and thus the appellant has established his possession over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and on account of interference into his possession by the respondents on 8.10.2002 the appellant was constrained to file the suit. The appellant submits that the trial Court ought to have considered that the appellant has proved his possession over the suit schedule property and passed the decree, but on assumptions and presumptions, dismissed the suit which is not correct and prayed to allow the appeal granting decree.
10. Now the point that arose for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the respondents and the judgment under appeal is sustainable or liable to be set aside?
11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that one Asgari
Begum was the owner of the land in Sy No.3221 and 3222 of Nizamabad shivar and she, through her G.P.A holder entered into an agreement of sale
dated 8.5.1992 with the plaintiff to sell Ac 2-15 gts. of land in Sy.No.3222
and Ac 1-19 gts in Sy No.3221 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,92,000/- and on the same day, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance at the time of registration. It is argued by the learned counsel that by the date of entering into agreement of sale, the vendor was not in possession of the property purchased by the appellant and by that time, the suit in O.S No.22 of 1988 was pending on the file of
Senior Civil Judges Court, Nizamabad filed by Asgari Begum seeking the
11 A.S.No.48 of 2012 relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property wherein the husband of Nallavelli Gangavva was shown as defendant No.3 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein on 27.11.1990 and the said fact was reflected in the agreement of sale dated 8.5.1992 marked as Ex.A12. It is argued that thereafter, Asgari Begum filed E.P.No. 27 of 1991 and accordingly, under the warrant, the Bailiff has delivered vacant possession of Ac 2-15 gts. of the land in Sy No.3222 and
Ac 1-15 gts. in Sy No.3221 and she was delivered with possession of the land through her GPA holder and the same can be seen from the certified copy of the warrant of the Bailiff marked as Ex.A11. It is argued that the delivery of possession of the property by the Bailiff was proceeded by proclamation of the delivery by beats of drums and the V.A.O endorsed the same on Ex.A11. It is argued that subsequently the original owner died and the death certificate is marked as Ex.A4 and under those circumstances, the sole legal heir of the owner by name Mohd.Mazhar Ali Khan has received the balance sale consideration of Rs.92,000/- and executed the registered sale deed which is marked as Ex.A1 and delivered possession of the property to the appellant. The learned counsel argued that in the suit in O.S
No.22 of 1988 the defendants 2 to 4 are got impleaded themselves as parties and upon the death of defendant No.2, her legal heirs are brought on record as defendant Nos. 5 to 10. It is argued that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 pleaded that Smt.Asgari Begum was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac 2-15 guntas in Sy No.3222 situated at Nizamabad shivar and out of the said land, she sold an extent of 36 guntas to Nallavelli
Gangavva vide registered sale deed No.2719/1981 dated 26.6.1981 which is marked as Ex.B2 and they further contended that Nallavalli Gangavva was in actual possession of 33 ½ guntas out of the land purchased by her and 12 A.S.No.48 of 2012 she in turn sold 9 guntas of land to defendant No.3 vide Ex.B3 and 8 guntas to defendant No.4 vide Ex.B4 and 8 ½ guntas to defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and the remaining land of 32 guntas was allegedly sold to Mohammad Anees i.e. the defendant No.2 through defendant No.1 who is alleged to be GPA of late Asgari Begum under Ex.B1 and hence the appellant filed the suit against the respondent No.1 seeing the relief of perpetual injunction on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judges Court, Nizamabad wherein some unwanted issues and additional issues were framed and accordingly, the appellant has disputed execution of Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. It is argued that it is not the case of the parties that the husband of Asgari Begum executed sale deed in favour of the appellant and on the other hand, the sole legal heir of Asgari
Begum executed Ex.A1 sale deed. But strangely, the trial Court has framed the issue “ Whether husband of late Asgari Begum executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration”.
It is argued that the issues framed by the trial court are not necessary for adjudication of the suit. The learned counsel argued that to get a proper perception of the claim of both the plaintiff and defendants, it is pertinent to peruse the Ex.A6 to Ex.A8 and Ex.A11 which are the certified copies of the documents pertaining to O.S No.22 of 1988 and the judgment delivered by the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The learned counsel argued that the defendant No.3 in O.S No.22 of 1988 is husband of Nallavelli Gangavva. It is argued that it is elicited in the evidence of DW6 that Nallavalli Gangavva wife of Nallavelli Narsimulu i.e. the defendant No.3 in O.S No.22 of 1988 and if Nallavalli Gangavva alleged to have purchased part of land in
Sy.No.3222 i.e. part of schedule property in the year 1981, she would surely have knowledge about the proceeding pending in the Court in O.S No.22 of 1988 and that late Asgari Begum would have claimed for recovery of 13 A.S.No.48 of 2012 possession of total extent of Ac 2-15 guntas. It is argued that defendant filed Ex.B6 under which Marampally Sailoo purchased 35 guntas and that he sold that land again under Ex.B7 to one Parsi Sheshank. It is argued that
Mailaram Sailoo engaged advocate and filed Vakalat vide Ex.A10 in E.P 27 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad though he is not a party to the suit and execution proceedings which establishes that Mailaram
Sailoo and Nallavalli Gangavva have knowledge about the suit and execution proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and they did not choose to challenge the suit or E.P. Proceedings because they are not in possession of any extent of land in Sy No.3222. It is argued that it is unimaginable that Nallavalli Gangavva or others purchased the land in
Sy No.3222 from Asgari Begum and delivered possession thereof. It is argued that Asgari Begum herself was not in possession of the land and the question of her selling the land to Nallavalli Gangavva or Mailarasm Sailoo does not arise. It is argued that it is not known why K.Bhumaiah was joined as party along with Asgari Begum in execution of GPA in favour of the defendant No.1 under Ex.B1 as the said Bhumaiah has no right or title whatsoever over the land in Sy No.3222. It is argued that Ex.B11 is sale deed dated 27.9.1994 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 to show that he has sold 32 guntas of land as GPA Holder of Asgari
Begum and K.Bhumaiah wherein there is a mention that possession of the land was delivered on 28.12.1988 itself and since Asgari Begum was not in possession of the land by that date, it shows that Ex.B1 and Ex.B11 are the documents created by the defendants. Those documents were not executed by Asgari Begum. It is argued that the delivery of possession of the land to
Asgari Begum under Execution Proceedings shows that she was not in possession of the property on the dates of the sale deeds allegedly executed 14 A.S.No.48 of 2012 in favour of the defendants 2 to 5. Hence there is no question that the defendants 2 to 5 are in possession of the suit land as on the date of the suit.
It is argued that the appellant has disputed the execution of Ex.B1 the alleged GPA executed in favour of the defendant No.1 and accordingly the appellant filed I.A No.23/2012 before the trial Court which was dismissed observing that “ the issue of possession by the petitioner and interference by the respondents fall directly for adjudication in a suit for permanent injunction and the question of title of the petitioner and respondents to the suit schedule property does not fall directly for consideration before this
Court. Under such scenario to ascertain the alleged signature of
Smt.Asghari Begum on documents bearing No.2219/81 and 221/88 with alleged signatures of Smt.Asgari Begum on plaint in O.S No.22/88 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad to prove or disprove title of parties vis-à-vis the suit schedule property the issue of possession by the petitioner and interference by the respondents fall directly for adjudication in a suit for permanent injunction and the question of title of the petitioner and respondents to the suit schedule property does not fall directly for consideration before this Court. Under such scenario to ascertain the alleged signature of Smt.Asghari Begum on documents bearing No.2219/81 and 221/88 with alleged signatures of Smt.Asgari Begum on plaint in
O.S No.22/88 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad to prove or
disprove title of parties vis-à-vis the suit schedule property is beyond the scope and ambit for consideration for adjudication of this suit in which this petition is pressed into service which will not serve any purpose”. In spite of said observation, the additional issues No.2 and 3 were framed and decided in favour of the respondents and hence the findings of the trial
Court in I.A No.23/2012 is altogether confronting/contrary to its findings in 15 A.S.No.48 of 2012 the judgment by considering the title based on disputed documents i.e.
Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in favour of the defendants and it cannot sustained in law.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the findings of the trial
Court is erroneous on the ground that it denied the appellant to disprove
Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 observing that proving and disproving the title of the parties is beyond the scope and ambit for consideration for adjudication of the suit and on the other hand, turned volte-face by considering those documents of title in favour of the respondents which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is argued that as regards Ex.B2 to Ex.B5, the very fact that Nallavelli Gangavva, in spite of her husband being a party to O.S
No.22/1988 did not challenge the claim of Asgari Begum to the entire extent of Ac 2-15 guntas in Sy No.3222 castes a very strong shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the documents. It is argued that Ex.B1 to
Ex.B7 will not help the respondents in any manner since Asgari Begum herself was not in possession of the suit land till she was delivered possession under Ex.A11 on 27.5.1993 and hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment under appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that Asagri
Begum was absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2-15 gts.
in Sy.No.3222 of Nizamabad shivar and out of the said land, she sold an extent of 36 guntas in favour of Smt.Nallaveli Gangavva under the registered sale deed document No.2719/1981 marked as Ex.B2, but actually
Nallavelli Gangavva was in possession of an extent of 33 guntas of land and out of the said land, Nallavelli Gangavva sold an extent of Ac 0-09 gts of land to defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 25.08.1986 which is marked as Ex.B3 and thereafter, Gangavva, out of the remaining land, sold an extent of 8 guntas in favour of defendant No.4 under the 16 A.S.No.48 of 2012 registered sale deed dt.12.09.1986 which is marked as Ex.B.4 and sold an extent of 8 gts. in favour of defendant No.5 under the registered sale deed
dated 1.9.1986. It is argued that the remaining 8 ½ guntas of land was
jointly purchased by the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 jointly from Nallavelli
Gangavva under the registered sale deed dated 29.9.1987 marked as Ex.B5 and thus the defendants No.3 to 5 have purchased total extent of 33 ½ guntas of land in Sy No.3222 from Nallavelli Gangavva with an intention to establish some commercial establishment and further submitted that out of the total extent of land in Sy No.3222, an extent of 32 guntas was purchased by the defendant No.2 through the defendant No.1 who is GPA holder of Asgari Begum on 27.09.1994 which is marked as Ex.B11 and the remaining land of 35 guntas was purchased by Marampally Sailoo @ Ganta
Sayanna from Asgari Begum under the registered sale deed dated 25.07.1980, certified copy of which is marked as Ex.B6. Subsequently, the said Marampally Sailoo sold the said 35 guntas of land to one Parsi
Sheshank under the registered sale deed document No.284/2001 dated 26.04.2001, the certified copy of which is marked as Ex.B7 and thereby
Asgari Begum sold the entire land in Sy No.3222 in favour of the defendants and there was no land available for her to sell the same to the plaintiff.
13. The learned counsel argued that the defendants were put in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of purchasing the property and still they are in possession of the property. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel that Asgari Begum has not executed any document in favour of Mohammad Saleemuddin and the said document is created by the plaintiff. Further, the learned counsel argued that the plaintiff who is not in possession of the suit property has got filed a false 17 A.S.No.48 of 2012 suit in O.S No.22 of 1988 by Asgari Begum against the husband of
Nallavelli Gangavva by name Narsimloo who is shown as defendant No.3 in the suit and obtained a false decree and thereafter, filed execution proceedings and obtained possession on paper , but actually the possession was not delivered to the alleged GPA holder of Asgari Begum and the actual possession of the land was with the defendants. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel that there is no legal heir of Asgari Begum by name
Mohammad Mazhar Ali Khan and the plaintiff, in collusion with Asgari
Begum, created the alleged agreement of sale dated 8.5.1992 and the sale deed dated 7.3.2002 and accordingly, the trial Court at length discussed and held that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the same. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel that the possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property is also recorded in the revenue records and the plaintiff has failed to produce any piece of evidence in proof of his possession over the property and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction and accordingly, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and hence there are no merits in the appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
14. The plaintiff who is examined as PW1 in his evidence deposed that Asgari Begum was the owner and pattadar of agricultural land in Sy.No.3222 admeasuring Ac 2-15 gts and in Sy No.3221 admeasuring
Ac 1-22 gts of land and she, through her G.P.A holder by name
Saleemuddin Ahmed entered into an agreement of sale with him to sell
Ac.1-20 gts of land in Sy No.3222/A for a sum of Rs.1,92,500/- and he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.92,500/- on the date of execution of registered sale deed. Further, he deposed that on the 18 A.S.No.48 of 2012 date of execution of the agreement of sale, marked as Ex.A12, Asgari
Begum was not in possession and enjoyment of the land and her tenants were in possession of the land and when her tenant refused to vacate the lands, Asgari Begum filed suit in O.S No.22/1988 on the file of Senior Civil
Judges Court, Nizamabad against the tenants and got a decree on
27.11.1990 and thereafter she filed the Execution Petition No.27 of 1991 and obtained delivery warrant and accordingly, on 27.5.1993 the Bailiff of the Court gave possession of the vacant land in Sy No.3222 and 3221 to
Asgari Begum by conducting panchnama and thus Asgari Begum came into possession of the land and thereafter, on 20.06.1999 Asgari Begum died and her sole legal heir Mohammad Mazhar Ali Khan received the balance sale consideration of Rs.92,500/- and executed the registered sale deed in his favour and the sale deed is marked as Ex.A1 and on the same day he was kept in possession of the property and he was issued with Pattadar Pass
Book under Ex.A2 and his possession is also recorded in the Pahanis for the year 2001-2002 and Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the Pahani. He deposed that the defendant No.2 contended that he had purchased the land in
Sy.No.3222 to an extent of 32 guntas from Asgari Begum through her G.P.A
Abdul Rahman i.e. the defendant No.1 herein vide registered sale deed, but
Asgari Begum never executed the said G.P.A in favour of defendant No.1 and it is a forged document. He deposed that the defendant No.1 is a professional land grabber and he is known for such creation of the documents and hence the defendant No.1 has no right, whatsoever to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 and the sale deed is created only to grab his land. He deposed that in the sale deed of defendant No.2, there is a mention that the possession of the land was delivered to him. But in fact, as on that day, the land was in possession of 19 A.S.No.48 of 2012 the tenants of Asgari Begum and the possession was delivered to her on 27.5.1993. He deposed that the defendants 3 to 5 have contended that
Asgari Begum sold land in Sy.No. 3222 admeasuring 36 guntas to
Nallavalli Gangavva under the registered sale deed document No.2719/81, but actually, the land on the spot was only 33 ½ guntas and out of the said land, Nallavelli Gangavv sold 9 guntas to defendant No.3 and 8 guntas to defendant No.5 and 8 guntas to defendant No.4 and the remaining 8 ½ guntas of land to defendants 2 to 5. But in fact the said land was never sold to Nallavelli Gangavva by Asgari Begum and the registered sale deed document No.2719/81 is fabricated document. He deposed that Nallavelli
Gangavva is wife of J.D.No.3 in the execution proceedings and as on the date of the alleged execution of sale deed by Asgari Begum, in favour of
Nallavelli Gangavva, Asgari Begum was not in possession of the property and the possession was delivered to her on 27.05.1993 and thus it shows that the documents are created by the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendant No.2 to 5. He deposed that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit while so, on 8.12.2010 the defendants with anti social elements came to the property and tried to interfere with his possession over the property and hence he filed the suit.
15. The plaintiff examined one Gangoni Laxminarayana as PW2 who deposed that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of Ac.1-19 guntas of land in Sy.No.3222/A, situated at Kaloor village of Nizamabad mandal and he is in possession of the said land since the year 2002. PW2 further deposed that he has taken permission from the plaintiff to cut the grass from the said land for the purpose of his cattle and he was keeping a watch on the land and guarding the same from being encroached by others. He deposed that except the plaintiff, no other person was in possession of the suit land 20 A.S.No.48 of 2012 and according to his evidence, the suit land was not under cultivation for about 15 to 16 years to his knowledge.
16. The plaintiff examined one Korva Srinivas as PW3 who deposed that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and he is in possession of the suit land since more than (6) years and on 8.10.2002 when he was proceeding towards the suit land, he saw the defendants and their henchmen were creating nuisance over the suit land by encroaching it and then he and others went to the rescue of the plaintiff and resisted the defendants.
17. The defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and he deposed that
Asgari Begum has no right in the suit land and hence the question of management of land by appointing G.P.A to look after the affairs and to sell the property does not arise. He deposed that there is no legal heir much les in the name of Mazhar Ali Khan of Smt.Asgari Begum and the document bearing No.1882/2002 is a fabrication for the purpose of grabbing the suit land. He deposed that the plaintiff was never in possession of any piece of suit land and hence the question of his interfering with the possession of the plaintiff does not arise. He deposed that Asgari Begum was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac 2-15 gts in Sy No.3222 and out of the said land, she sold an extent of 36 guntas in favour of Nallavelli Gangavva under the registered sale deed dated 26.6.1981, but actually Nallavelli
Gangavva was in possession of only 33 ½ guntas of land and out of the said land, she sold an extent of 9 guntas to Smt.Amina i.e defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 25.08.1986 and subsequently, registered as document No.945/1989. Further, he deposed that Nallavelli
Gangavva sold another extent of 8 guntas in favour of the defendant No.4 21 A.S.No.48 of 2012 through registered sale deed dated 12.09.1986 which was subsequently, registered as document No.947/1989. Further, Nallavelli Gangavva sold 8 ½ guntas of land in favour of defendants 3 to 5 under the registered sale deed dated 29.01.1987 which was subsequently registered as document
No.948/1989 and thus the defendants 3 to 5 purchased total extent of 33 ½ guntas of land in Sy No.3222 from Asgari Begum. He further deposed that the defendant No.2 purchased an extent of Ac 32 guntags in the same survey number through him as GPA of Asgari Begum and he executed the registered sale deed on 27.09.1994. Further, he deposed that one Marampalli Sailoo has purchased an extent of 35 guntas of land from
Asgari Begum under the registered sale deed dated 25.07.1980 and subsequently, Marampally Sailoo sold the said land to one Parsi Sheshank under the registered sale deed dated 26.04.2001 and he got his name mutated in the revenue records and was issued with Pattadar Pass Book and
Title Deed and hence no land is remaining in Sy.No.3222 for Asgari Begum to sell the same to the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction. He deposed that Asgari Begum never executed any G.P.A in favour of Saleemuddin Ahmed and the proceedings in O.S No.22 of 1998 are all created by the plaintiff in collusion with
Asgari Begum. He deposed that defendants No.3 to 5 have purchased part of the land from Asgari Begum, but he has clearly admitted in the cross examination that the names of defendant Nos.3 to 5 are not shown in the
Pahanis. Further, he deposed that Asgari Begum was the owner of the property and Bhoomaiah was cultivating the suit land, but he did not file any pahani to show possession of Bhoomaiah over the suit schedule property.
22 A.S.No.48 of 2012
18. The defendant No.6 by name Sabeeha Parveen is examined as
DW2 and she deposed that she is widow of defendant No.2 and defendant
Nos.7 to 8 are her children and defendant No.10 is her mother-in-law and they are all legal heirs of defendant No.2. She deposed that her husband
Mohd.Anees purchased an extent of 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.3222 from
DW1 who is the GPA holder of Asgari Begum under the registered sale deed dated 27.09.1994 and on the same day, he was kept in possession of the land and he continued his possession till his death. She deposed that the land purchased by her husband was mutated in the name of her husband. She further deposed that the plaintiff never purchased the suit land from Asgari Begum and the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are created by the plaintiff. Though she deposed that the possession of the land purchased by her was delivered on the date of execution of sale deed, in the cross examination, she has admitted that she does not know that Asgari
Begum filed suit in O.S No.22 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judges
Court, Nizamabad and also filed E.P.No.27 of 1991 and under the E.P., the
Bailiff handed over possession of the land to Asgari Begum.
19. The defendant No.4 by name Smt. Shereen is examined as
DW3 and she deposed that Asgari Begum was the owner of the land in
Sy.No.3222/A and she sold an extent of 36 guntas of land in favour of
Smt.Nallavelli Gangavva under the registered sale deed dated 26.6.1981, but actually Nallavelli Gangavva was in possession of 33 ½ guntas of land on the spot and out of the said land, Nallavelli Gangavva sold (9) guntas to defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 25.08.1986 and sold an extent of (8) guntas in favour of defendant No.5 under the registered sale deed dated 1.09.1986 and (8) guntas of land in her favour under the registered sale deed dated 12.08.1986 and 8 ½ guntas of land in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.5 under the registered sale deed dt.29.1.1987 and thus the defendants 3 to 5 have purchased the total extent 23 A.S.No.48 of 2012 of 33 ½ guntas of land from Nallavelli Gangavva and they were put in possession of the land on the date of execution of the sale deeds. Further,
DW3 deposed that the defendant No.2 purchased an extent of 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.3222 and one Marampally Sailoo has purchased 35 guntas of land from Asgari Begum under the registered sale deed dated 25.07.1980 and subsequently, Marampally Sailoo sold the land purchased by him to one Parsi Sheshank under the registered sale deed dated 26.04.2001 and the purchaser got mutated the land in his name and was issued with pattadar pass book and title deeds and hence there is no land available for Asgari
Begum in Sy No.3222 to sell the same to the plaintiff. She deposed that the plaintiff never purchased Ac 1-19 guntas of land in Sy.No.3222 from Asgari
Begum and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are created by the plaintiff. But in the cross examination, she has admitted that she does not know Asgari Begum filed suit in O.S No.22 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad making husband of Nallavelli Gangavva as defendant No.3, for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the said suit was decreed and the
Bailiff of the Court delivered possession of the land to Asgari Begum in
E.P.No.27 of 1991.
20. The defendant No.5 by name Smt.Dilashad is examined as
DW4 and in her evidence, she deposed that Asgari Begum was the owner of the land admeasuring Ac 2-15 gts in Sy No.3222 and out of the said land, she sold 36 guntas in favour of Nallavelli Gangavva under the registered sale ded dated 26.6.1991, but Nallavelli Gangavva was in actual possession of 33 ½ guntas of land on the spot. She deposed that out of the said land,
Nallavelli Gangavva sold an extent of Ac 0-09 gts in favour of defendant
No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 25.08.1986 and also sold Ac 0-08 gts of land in favour of defendant No.5 under the registered sale deed dated 1.9.1986 and sold Ac 0-08 gts in favour of defendant No.4 under the registered sale deed dt.12.09.1986 and sold remaining 8 ½ gts of land in 24 A.S.No.48 of 2012 favour of defendant No.3 and 4 under the registered sale deed dt.29.01.1987 and thus the defendants No.3 to 5 have purchased 33 ½ gts of land from Nallavelli Gangavva. She further deposed that defendant No.2 purchased extent of Ac 0-32 gts of land in Sy No.3222 and one Marampalli
Sailoo has purchased 35 gts. of land from Asgari Begum under the registered sale deed dated 25.07.1980 and subsequently, he sold the said land to one Parsi Sheshank under the registered sale deed dt. 26.4.2001 and he was issued with pattadar passed book and title deed and thus there is no land available in Sy.No.3222 for Asgari Begum to sell the same to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale in the year 1992 and under registered sale deed in the year 2002 and thus the plaintiff was never in possession of the land in Sy.No.3222. But in the cross examination, she has admitted that she does not know that Asgari Begum filed suit in O.S No.22 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad making the husband of Nallavelli
Gangu as defendant No.3 seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and the said suit was decreed and Asgari Begum was delivered with possession of the suit land by the court bailiff under
E.P.22 of 1991.
21. The defendant No.3 is examined as DW5 and he deposed in the same lines as that of DWs 1 to 4 and further stated that Asgari Begum after selling the land has no land in Sy.No.3222 situated at Nizamabad to sell the same to the plaintiff. She deposed that she and defendant No.4 and 5 have purchased 18 ½ guntas of land from Nallavelli Gangavva under the registered sale deed dated 29.1.1987. But in the cross examination, she has admitted that she does not know Asgari Begum filed the suit in O.S No.22 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and the said suit was decreed and the Asgari Begum got possession of the land by the Court bailiff in
E.P.No.27 of 1991.
25 A.S.No.48 of 2012
22. One Ganta Laxman is examined as DW6 and he deposed that
Asgari Begum sold an area of 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.3222 of
Nizamabad shivar in favour of Nallavelli Gangu in the year 1981 under sale deed which is marked as Ex.B2 and he and one Narayan Reddy Patwari have signed the document as witnesses. He further deposed that Nallavelli
Gangavva sold land purchased by her to defendant No.3 to 5 and the purchasers were put in possession of the said property on the same day. He further deposed that defendant No.2 purchased 32 guntas of land from the
GPA holder of Asgari Begum i.e. the defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed and one Marampalli Sailoo also purchased the remaining extent from Asgari Begum and thus Asgari Begum had no land in Sy.No.3222. He further deposed that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land.
But in the cross examination, he has deposed that he does not know that
Nallavelli Gangu sold the land purchased by her to defendant Nos.3 to 5.
Further, he deposed that he does not know that Asgari Begum filed suit in
O.S No.22 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad by making
husband of Nallavelli Gangavva as defendant No.3 and she was delivered possession under the delivery warrant in E.P.No.27 of 1991.
23. One Abdul Khader is examined as DW7 and he deposed that
Asgari Begum and one K.Bhumaiah executed registered General Power of
Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1988 in respect of land admeasuring Ac 0-32 gts in Sy No.3222 and he signed the said document as witness No.2 and the said document is marked as Ex.B1. But whereas in the cross examination, he has admitted that he does not know particular survey number of the land for which defendant No.1 was given power of attorney by Asgari Begum.
24. The defendant No.1 has also filed Ex.B1 the General Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Asgari Begum and K.Bhumaiah in favour of defendant No.1. But it shows that the said document is 26 A.S.No.48 of 2012 interpolated by correcting survey number and extent of land.
25. The defendants have also filed Ex.B2 the original sale deed executed by Asgari Begum in favour of Nallavelli Gangavva to an extent of
Ac.0-36 gts of land situated in Sy.No.3222 executed on 26.6.1981. The defendants have also filed Ex.B3 the original sale deed executed by
Nallavelli Gangavva in favour of defendant No.3 for an extent of Ac 0-09 gts of land in suit survey number. Ex.B4 is the original sale deed executed by Nallavelli Gangavva in favour of defendant No.4 for an extent of Ac.0- 08 ½ gts of land in the same survey number and Ex.B6 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Asgari Begum in favour of Marampalli Sailoo in respect of Ac 0-35 gts of land in the suit survey number and Ex.B7 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Marampalli Sailoo in favour of
Parsi Sheshank dated 26.04.2001 in respect of land covered by Ex.B6 and
Ex.B11 the certified copies of sale deed executed by Asgari Begum and
K.Bhumaiah in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac 0-32 gts of land in Sy No.3222 dated 27.09.1994. The defendants have also filed Ex.B8 the certified copy of the Pahani for the year 1980-81 which shows that Asgari
Begum is the owner of the property in Sy.No.3222 and one Gattu Buddenna is in possession of Ac 0-35 guntas and one Nallavelli Nasimulu husband of
Nallavelli Gangavva was in possession of Ac 0-36 gts of land. Ex.B9 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1984-85 wherein it is shown that
Nallavelli Gangavva is owner and pattedar of the land admeasuring Ac 0-36 guntas in the suit survey number. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92 which shows that Asgari Begum is pattedar of the suit land and Ganta Buddenna and Nallavelli Gangavva are in possession of the same. Ex.B12 is the original sale deed executed by Nallavelli Gangavva in favour of defendant No.5 to an extent of Ac 0-08 guntas of land in Sy
No.3222. Thus the defendants have filed the original sale deeds to show that Asgari Begum has sold total 35 ½ guntas of land to different purchasers including Nallavelli Gangavva and Nallavelli Gangavva, in turn, she sold 27 A.S.No.48 of 2012 the property to defendants No.3 to 5 and Marampalli Sailoo who also purchased the property and sold to one Parsi Sheshank and Nallavelli
Gangavva is shown in possession of the suit land in the year 1984-85 and 1991-92. But as can be seen from Ex.A5 the certified copy of decree in
O.S No.22 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, it shows
that Asgari Begum has filed the suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 wherein the husband of Nallavelli Gangavva by name Nallavelli Narsimulu is shown as defendant No.3, seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of Ac.2-15 gts of land in Sy No.3222 and ac 1-22 gts of land in Sy.No.3221 situated at Nizamabad and for mesne profits and accordingly the said suit was decreed and the certified copy of judgment is marked as Ex.A6. Thereafter Asgari Begum filed E.P.No.27 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad against the JDrs for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in O.S No.22 of 1988 and Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the execution petition and obtained delivery warrant under Ex.A9 and the warrant was executed and the possession of the property including the suit land was delivered to the GPA holder of Asgari
Begum by name Mohd.Saleemuddin on 27.5.1993. Thus it shows that
Nallavelli Gangavva and her husband Nallavaelli Narsimulu are shown in possession of the property admeasuring Ac 0-36 gts in the Pahani but actually they were not kept in possession of the property under the sale deed marked as Ex.B2 dated 26.6.1991 as Asgari Begum was kept in possession of the property under the warrant dated 27.5.1993.
26. On the other hand, the plaintiff in support of the oral evidence filed Ex.A12 agreement of sale where under the plaintiff purchased Ac 2-15 gts of land in Sy No.3222 situated at Nizamabad and also filed Ex.A1 original sale deed where under the plaintiff has purchased
Ac 1-19 gts of land in Sy No.3222/A and according to the recitals in the sale deed on the same day he was kept in possession of the property.
Further, the plaintiff filed Ex.A2 the original pattadar pass book which 28 A.S.No.48 of 2012 shows that the plaintiff was issued with pattadar pass book for the suit schedule property and other properties. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of
Pahani which shows that the plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of the
Ac 1-19 gts in suit survey number. Thus the evidence adduced from the side of the plaintiff and defendants shows that Asgari Begum through the first defendant sold the suit property to defendants 3 to 5 and others but actual possession was not delivered to the purchasers as Asgari Begum got possession of the property on 27.5.1993 under the Execution Proceedings by the Court Bailiff and thus the defendants are not in possession of the property as on the date of the suit and on the other hand, the plaintiff who purchased the property under the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A12 purchased the property under Ex.A1 and he was issued with Pattadar Pass
Book and also his possession is recorded in the Pahani for the year 2001- 2002 and in spite of it, the trail court basing on the registered sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 to 5 and others, found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and gave finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the suit which is not correct and hence the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction.
27. IN THE RESULT, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment in O.S No.507 of 2002 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judges Court,
Nizamabad granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2015
District Judge,
Nizamabad.