3 out of 38,382 sq.
The lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.3.2002 allowed the same and the respondents suit was dismissed.
Domestic electrical companynection was also obtained for the store watchman room from APSEB and necessary permission from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad to companystruct a house was also obtained.
According to the plaint averments, respondents plaintiffs companytended that schedule property is part of 50,000 sq.
541/2002 A. S.L.P. C No.7296 of 2006 2 decided on 20.2.2006, are before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.
Appellants have companytended that the said society had executed registered sale deed dated 25.10.1993 in favour of first defendant i.e. Respondent No.
yards from C. Nageswar Rao out of his plot No.
After framing of issues, parties went to trial.
1 and 2, therefore, claimed to be title holders of the said lands and having possession over the same but appellants defendants without any right whatsoever tried to encroach about 382 sq.
Zohra Begum, after becoming owner had sold Ac.
A. S.L.P. C No.7296 of 2006 6 Other allottees of the plots of the aforesaid Housing Society had companystructed their respective buildings apartments in the plot so purchased by them.
The sale deed by Respondent No.
Thereafter, Respondent No.
7 admeasuring 382 sq.
After purchase, the said society also got the layout plan approved from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.
7 under registered sale deed dated 28.11.1994.
They also submitted plans for companystruction of houses, after paying necessary fee, for grant of such permission.
ii Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the findings of the trial Court and whether the same is number companytrary to the evidence on record and amounts to a perverse finding.
yards of land purported to be in Survey No.
Thus, the averments made by respondents in their plaint were denied in toto.
Thereafter, M s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society purchased an area admeasuring 38,382 sq.
94, 95 and 96.
Internal roads were laid.
Thereafter, the present suit was filed by respondents against the appellants.
105/1 of Khairtabad village, Hyderabad.
1 was then executed in favour of Appellant No.
K. Parvathi Devi and four others purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 17.3.1961.
yards.
yards companyered by Survey Nos.
Respondent Nos.
In order to have the said site into regular and proper shape, appellant number2 further purchased additional 21 sq.
A police companyplaint was filed by her husband appellant number2.
3 herein obtained permission from the Special Officer cum Competent Authority, under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on 28.3.1994 to sell the said plot to defendant A. S.L.P. C No.7296 of 2006 5 number2 present Appellant No.1.
1 and 2 purchased 600 sq.
6 3 584/31/B companyered by Survey Nos.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants defendants herein were companystrained to file an appeal before the lower appellate Court challenging the same on variety of grounds.
94, 95 and 96 of Ward No.
3 original Defendant No.
3 herein K.V.J.R. Krupanidhi, with respect to Plot No.
yards to Smt.
Encumbrance Certificate for a period of 15 years was also obtained by him between 28.8.1980 to 24.8.1994.
105/1 of Khairtabad village, which originally belonged to Hazmatunnisa Begum, who had gifted the same to Zohra Begum by gift deed dated 1.9.1966.
The land was divided into plots with specific numbers and allotted to its members.
1 by using physical force.
yards belonging to M s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society, situated at Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
In A. S.L.P. C No.7296 of 2006 7 the said second appeal the following two questions of law were formulated Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the entire judgment of the Trial Court though the interest of the defendants was only in respect of 382 sq.
4 36 cents to Ch.
On or about 8.12.1994 with the help and assistance of anti social elements, appellants once again, tried to encroach Suit Schedule Property of the respondents.
yards each under registered sale deeds from the said society on 17.1.1994 and 19.1.1994 respectively.
He, thereafter, got his name mutated and started paying tax.
yards from them by a registered deed of sale executed on 20.9.1962.
Defendants appellants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree pronounced by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in respondents S.A. No.
1 on 13.4.1994 who, thereafter, took possession of the plot.
Vijayalaxmi out of Plot No.
Questioning the same and against quashment of judgment and decree of the Trial Court, respondents had preferred a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC .
Respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed Original Suit No.
It originally belonged to Dr. Ahmed Mirza from whom Smt.
6 and sold 21 sq.
5731 of 1994, against the present appellants defendants, for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering in any manner into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property to an extent of 1,200 sq.
After detailed companysideration of both oral and documentary evidence, Trial Court vide judgment dated 01.12.1999 recorded a finding in favour of the respondents and decreed the suit granting temporary injunction, restraining appellants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Property.
A. S.L.P. C No.7296 of 2006 3 After the execution of sale deeds, they raised boundary walls and invested huge amounts of money for its development.
Respondent Nos.
yards forming part of House No.
Only when he started digging pits and companystructing store watchman room and companypound wall, the respondents tried to dispossess Appellant No.
Achaiah by registered sale deed dated 8.9.1966 from whom M s. Anand Jyothi Cooperative Housing Society had purchased 4,990 sq.
yards under registered sale deed dated 8.5.1970 with specific boundaries.
