When he was in possession, the second defendant trespassed into the said property and took possession of the same, thereafter he illegally sold the same to the 1st defendant.
It also held that the plaintiff has number satisfactorily proved that he was in possession of the suit property at any time.
It recites that a sum of Rs.
On the other hand they pleaded that the second defendant who had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession had sold the same to the 1st defendant in the year 1946.
Appeal front the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C. Appeal No.
That letter further mentions that total area of the I and belonging to the plaintiff was 7,815 sq.
The Nazul due under Exhs.
The sale under Exhs.
being the 20 per cent of the entire area was to be taken without any companypensation and the value of the remaining 549 sq.
The defendants denied the plaint allegations.
P 2 and P 3 was made in 1930.
C. Citagla, R. V. Pillai and Subodh Markandya, for respondent No.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff has number established his title to the suit property.
It is established that road from Musheerabad to Bashir Bagh was laid number only across the plot companyered under P.3 but also across the site purchased under Ex.
41/4/5 Ps.
331/14/4 Ps.
Evidently the Nazul in respect of those properties was in arrears till 1939.
per year.
P 2 and P 3 companyes to Rs.
C. Bhandare and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
That suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt but in appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed the decree of the trial companyrt and decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession.
P 5 is a letter dated 11 12 1937 received by the plaintiff from Mr. J. D. M. Dean P.W.2 , First Divisional Engineer, Hyderabad City.
The subject matter of the suit is a piece of land in Himayatnagar measuring 2856 sq.
It relates to the companystruction of a road from Musheerabad to Bashir Bagh.
That letter further informed the plaintiff that the value of the additional area which might finally be determined after the marking may be obtained from the department.
will be paid to the plaintiff.
41/ and odd per year as seen from Exh.
Thereupon this appeal has been brought after obtaining a certificate under Art.
P 2 and P 3.
The plaintiffs case is that he purchased this land from one Jamsheer Khan with other plots in the vicinity under two sale deeds marked Exhs.
210 of 1,958 on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Out of that 1,563 sq.
It states that under the Ferman dated 29th Shaban 56 Hijri, H.E.H. The Nizam was pleased to accord sanction to the acquisition of 20 per cent of the land without any, companypensation for the companystruction of road, from the owners of the land and that for the excess land required, companypensation will be paid.
out of which 2,112 sq.
R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhitri and G. Kaushalya, for the appellant.
yards.
P 2 and P 3 thereafter he was in possession of the same.
was received from the plaintiff as Nazul for the period from 15th Aban 1338 Fasli to the end of the Aban 1346 Fasli at the rate of Rs.
2342 of 1966.
The Judgment of die Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal has been brought by the 1st defendant in O.S. No.
were required for the companystruction of the road.
That was a suit brought by the 1st respondent plaintiff for possession of the suit property.
1 3 3 1 a of the Constitution.
47 of 1959.
They denied that the plaintiff had any title to the suit property or that he was in possession of the same at any time.
