The trial companyrt came to the finding that in view of the registered sale deed dated 22.5.1968 executed by Lakshmamma in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha in respect of the suit property, she was numberlonger companypetent to execute the subsequent sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum through whom the plaintiff petitioner claims title.
In the light of the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the main issue which fell for decision of the trial companyrt was whether the petitioner had acquired title to the suit properties by virtue of the deed of sale dated 5.3.1984 executed in his favour by Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum in view of the case of the defendant that Lakshmamma had already sold the suit property to one Thondolu Mahaboob Basha by a registered deed of sale dated 22.5.1968 Ext.
The First Appellate Court held that the testimony of DW.4, Lakshmamma, did number inspire companyfidence and, accordingly, discarded the same as far as the sale deed in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha on 22.5.1968 Ext.
The judgment and order of the trial companyrt was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner.
A1 , and decreed the suit.
Subsequently, Thondolu Mahaboob Basha sold two portions of the said land, namely, Survey No.99/6 to an extent of 40 cents out of 52 cents and Survey No.99/6 to an extent of 47 cents, companyprising the suit land, to Pallampalli Pedda Veera Reddy, by a registered deed of sale dated 17.5.1982.
The First Appellate Court, however, chose number to rely on the evidence of Lakshmamma, DW.4 , who in her deposition was number certain as to how the sale deed was said to have been executed by her in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha as she neither knew him number the scribe, who is said to have written the sale deed.
The defendant, accordingly, was the absolute owner of the said land and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since then.
In September, 1988, the petitioner filed O.S. No.735 of 1988 in the Court of District Munsif, Cuddapah, inter alia, for declaration of the petitioners title to the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 and his men from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession therein and enjoyment thereof.
As indicated hereinbefore, the High Court accepted the evidence of DW.4 Lakshmamma and came to a finding that by virtue of Ex.
Lakshmamma, in her turn, sold the property to one Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum, a minor represented by her guardian and father Syed Ghouse, by a registered sale deed dated 10.5.1974 and the same was allegedly attested by the defendant No.1 himself.
The defendant thereafter purchased the said two plots of land from the said Pallampalli Pedda Veera Reddy by a registered deed dated 7.11.1985.
The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement wherein it was admitted that the suit lands originally belonged to the defendant No.1 who sold the same to Lakshmamma, but the said Lakshmamma sold all the lands, except Survey No.93/6, to one Thondolu Mahaboob Basha, son of Dathagiri by a registered deed of sale dated 22.5.1968.
It may be indicated that the defendant No.1 Koppolu Subba Reddy, died during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, and the Respondents Nos.
B2 she had transferred all her rights, title and interest in the suit properties in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha and having divested her of the title to the suit properties, she was numberlonger companypetent to execute a further sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi on 16.3.1974 Ex.
Thereafter, Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum sold the land to the petitioner by a registered deed of sale dated 5.3.1984 and the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land in his own right since then.
2 to 4 herein were brought on record as his legal representatives.
The judgment and decree of the 1st Additional District Judge was set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt dismissing the petitioners suit was restored.
The respondents herein filed Second Appeal No.656 of 1997, in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18th April, 2007.
B2 is companycerned and relied on the subsequent deed executed in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum dated 10.5.1974 Ext.
According to the petitioner, the suit property belonged to the defendant No.1, Koppolu Subba Reddy who sold the same to one Pasupula Lakshmamma by a registered deed of sale dated 19.7.1966.
In other words, what the Court was called upon to decide was whether Ext.
B2 extinguished Lakshmammas right in the suit property so that she numberlonger had any right to execute and register the sale deed dated 10th May, 1974 executed in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum.
The trial companyrt thereupon dismissed the suit.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Despite service of numberice, the respondents have number appeared to companytest the Special Leave Petition which is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.A. No.656 of 1997.
The petitioner preferred an appeal, being A.S.No.113 of 1990, in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, which was allowed on 26th March, 1997.
The III Additional District Munsif dismissed the petitioners suit on 29.11.1990, upon holding that the petitioner had failed to establish the title of his predecessor in interest in the suit land.
