THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.C.A.No.225 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.18 of 2008, by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the property was owned by Laxmi Ammal, and after her death, the respondent had succeeded to the said property. His further allegation was that the appellant encroached into the property in the year 2000 without any basis, and soon thereafter, he filed O.S.No.1540 of 2005 in the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for injunction. The said suit is said to have been decreed. The respondent pleaded that the appellant had no manner of right vis-à-vis the property. The appellant filed a written-statement, opposing the suit. He pleaded that the premises were under lease in favour of one D.K.Sapra and that he has been authorised to remain in possession by the legal representatives of the original lessee. The trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal. Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable, since he did not seek the relief as to declaration of his title. He contends that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant is the GPA holder of the undisputed tenants of the premises, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the decree. It is also his contention that the respondent failed to prove the execution of the Will relied upon him. Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the title of Laxmi Ammal was recognized by various authorities and being the immediate legal heir, the respondent is entitled to recover possession. He contends that the appellant failed to spell out the nature of rights, vis-à-vis the properties, and the inevitable consequence was that he was liable to be evicted. The respondent filed the suit for eviction. He stated that Laxmi Ammal, his senior maternal aunt, was lessee for 99 years in respect of the land, and after her death, his mother had succeeded to it. He stated that both as Class-I legal heir of his mother and as a legatee under a Will, he has got claimed exclusive rights over the property. He has also made reference to various proceedings, that have ensued, over the past several decades. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded that one Sri D.K. Sapra was a lessee in respect of the premises and after his death his children succeeded to the rights. The appellant is said to be in possession of the property as GPA of the LRs of the lessee. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit schedule property? The appellant did not insist on framing of any issue, pertaining to the maintainability of the suit, or title of the respondent. The respondent deposed as PW-1 and he filed Exs.A-1 to A- 15. The appellant deposed as DW-1 and he filed Exs.B-1 to B-16. The oral evidence was not at all of much use to either of the parties. The documentary evidence filed by the respondent is in the form of certified copies of judgments and decrees in various suits and proceedings; encumbrance certificates, and the correspondence, that ensued in respect of the property. The appellant did not assert any title in himself. The documentary evidence adduced by him is mostly comprised of electricity bills and other correspondence. There is no denial of the fact that he is in possession. He could have resisted the suit only by pleading any parallel title. He cannot be treated as a tenant or the GPA of a tenant, since there is nothing on record to disclose that any rent was being paid. The inescapable conclusion is that the appellant is in occupation of the suit schedule property without holding any title, including the one, through adverse possession, nor a lessee. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed a decree for eviction. No serious defect is pointed out in the decree and judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the children of his client are studying in educational institutions and they would face hardship, in case the appellant is required to vacate the premises immediately. He prays for reasonable time to vacate the premises. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court is of the view that the appellant can be granted time till the end of March, 2012, by imposing a condition that he would be under obligation to pay damages, if he fails to vacate the premises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till 31.03.2012 to vacate the premises. In case he fails to vacate the premises and put the respondent in vacant possession, he shall be under obligation to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), per month from the date of decree till the date of delivery of possession. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-07-2011. KO