THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.C.C.A.NO.81 OF 2006 DATED:19-04- 2010. Between Mahabub Ali … Appellant-Plaintiff And 1.Smt. Khadeeja Bee and two others …Respondents-Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.C.C.A.NO.81 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28-12-2001, in O.S.No.198 of 2001, on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the suit filed for recovery of possession, was dismissed. 2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property bearing No.8-2-219, admeasuring 169.77 sq. yards situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad. The first defendant who is the niece of the plaintiff was not having any shelter to live as her husband was not taking care and looking after her. On the request of 1st defendant, the plaintiff permitted the 1st defendant and her two sons i.e., defendants 2 and 3 to stay in one room and verandah admeasuring 18.33 sq. yards situated towards northern side of plaintiff’s house. For the last 14 years, all the defendants have been staying in the said portion, which is the suit schedule property in the capacity of permissive possessors without payment of any rent. When the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, they refused to do so. Hence, the suit. 3. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant. The averments in the written statement of the 1st defendant are as follows: The defendants are residing in their house bearing Door No.8-2-219/A situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad and not in H.No.8-2- 219. About 30 years ago, some people including the plaintiff and this defendant occupied certain extent of land. The land occupied by this defendant and her husband is about 25 sq. yards and the same is abutting the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff raised certain sheds within the land occupied by him. Similarly, this defendant and her husband raised two sheds, bathroom and lavatory by leaving small open place. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has assigned door numbers to the house of the plaintiff as well as to the house of the defendant. The plaintiff has no right to claim title to the premises which is in the occupation of this defendant. As the suit property belongs to the defendant, the plaintiff has no right to request the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the same to him. As the plaintiff being a Retired Police Constable, he threatened the defendants to get them evicted from the suit house with the help of police. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the defendants are liable to be vacated from the suit schedule premises? 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession as prayed for? 3.To what relief? 5. P.W.1 himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. 1st defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, this appeal has been preferred. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that no opportunity was given to advance the arguments and hence, he prays to set aside the judgment. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that though counsel for the appellant did not argue the case, at the same time, the trial Court passed the order basing on the evidence available on record and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. The suit is filed for recovery of possession stating that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. Having filed the suit for recovery of possession, it must be established by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property. Except Exs.A1 to A13, no other documents is filed to show that he is the owner of the property. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of town survey register, Ex.A2 is the sketch plan of the suit schedule property, Ex.A3 is the electrol card, and Exs.A4 to A8 are the municipal tax receipts, which at best show about the possession of the plaintiff, but no document is filed to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. When he is not shown to be the owner of the property by filing necessary documents, question of recovery of possession does not arise. That is the reason why, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. Though the judgment was passed in the absence of the counsel for the appellant in the trial Court, the same does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court in view of the fact that the trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record, dismissed the suit in as much as the plaintiff failed to establish his title. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:19-04- 2010 Hsd