JUDGMENT C.C.CA NO.90/96 is filed as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S. No. 80/81 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. C.C.C.A. No. 92/96 is filed as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S. No. 208/82 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. C.C.C.A. No. 82/96 is filed as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S. No. 61/84 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Tr. C.C.CA No. 105/98 was numbered as A.S. No. 116/96 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was preferred as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S. No. 606/83 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. All these matters were disposed of by this common Judgment. The evidence was recorded in 0.S.No.80/81 aforesaid. 2. Contentions of Sri Balchand: Sri Balchand, the learned Counsel representing appellants, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in all the aforesaid suits, made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel would comment that the learned Judge proceeded on the assumption that the possession of this land was given to the predecessor-in-title of the defendants in Execution Petition No.16/62. The learned Counsel would maintain that the identity of the property was not established and hence the findings recorded in relation thereto are unsustainable. The learned Counsel also would comment that the appellants herein-plaintiffs were not parties to the suit O.S. No. 5/1/1951 and also to the Execution Petition No. 1611962 aforesaid and in view of the same, the said proceedings cannot be said to be binding on appellants plaintiffs. The learned Counsel also would comment that claiming positive relief of title is something different from claiming perfection of title by adverse possession and this aspect was not properly considered by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel also would comment that the view expressed by the learned Judge that adverse inference may have to be drawn because of the non-examination of the plaintiffs also cannot be sustained in the light of the fact that P. W.1 is no other than the husband of 3rd plaintiff and he has been looking after all the affairs of the family and hence the learned Judge should have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and should have decreed all the suits. The learned Counsel also had narrated how the property originally belonged to late Nawab Zaffar Nawaz Jung and also had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and had pointed out to several discrepancies to establish that the plaintiffs were able to establish the title to the suit property and the respondents- defendants were unable to establish that the documents in question relate to the said same property. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms. No. 1509 and had made elaborate submissions in relation to certain revenue proceedings. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel explained the documentary evidence EX.A-1 to Ex.A-144, Ex. B-1 to EX.B-94 and also EX.C-1 to EX.C-3 and ultimately would conclude that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 may not be sufficient to establish the case of the appellants-plaintiffs, these are fit matters to be remanded so as to give an opportunity to adduce further evidence in relation to the documents which had been already marked. 3. Contentions of Sri O. Manohar Reddy:- Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents-defendants in one of the suits made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel would maintain that the purchase made by the respondents defendants is clear and even if the delivery of possession from the year 1967 is to be taken into consideration, the suits filed by the plaintiffs are hopelessly barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would comment that there is clear evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.5 on record and there cannot be any doubt or controversy relating to the identity of the property and hence in the 3 light of the findings which had been recorded 3 by the learned Judge, the findings are to be 3 confirmed. 4. Contentions of Sri Prakash Reddy:- Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents-defendants would maintain that the stand taken by the appellants - plaintiffs that identity of the property had not been established may not be a sustainable ground. 4. Contentions of Sri Prakash Reddy:- Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents-defendants would maintain that the stand taken by the appellants - plaintiffs that identity of the property had not been established may not be a sustainable ground. The learned Counsel would maintain that in a suit for ejectment or recovery of possession, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish the title and when they are unable to establish the same, they are bound to fail irrespective of the fact whether the defendants were able to establish their title or not. The learned Counsel also would contend that whether the plea of limitation is specifically pleaded or not, it is the duty of the Court to look into the aspect of limitation and dismiss the suits if the Court is satisfied that the suits are otherwise barred by limitation. The learned Counsel also in particular had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of D. W.2 who worked as Patwari for Begumpet area and also for Khairatabad area and would comment that this witness specifically deposed about the delivery effected by the Bailiff in September 1967 and one Dasarath was Patwari at that time and he was the Patwari to the adjacent village and he was also present. The learned Counsel would comment that in the light of the evidence of D. W.2 apart from the other evidence available on record, there cannot be any doubt or controversy relating to the identity of the property. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the other evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, and would comment that in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the title of the defendants had been clearly established and even otherwise if the continuous possession from the year 1967 is reckoned with, the suits are clearly barred by limitation and in any view of the matter, the findings of the learned Judge need not be disturbed. 5 and 6. Pleadings and issues omitted; 7. The common evidence was recorded. P.W.1 was examined through Advocate-Commissioner and Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.) 43 were marked. On behalf of the defendants in all the suits, D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined and EX.B-1 to Ex. B-94and Ex. C-1 to EX.C-3were marked. 5 and 6. Pleadings and issues omitted; 7. The common evidence was recorded. P.W.1 was examined through Advocate-Commissioner and Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.) 43 were marked. On behalf of the defendants in all the suits, D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined and EX.B-1 to Ex. B-94and Ex. C-1 to EX.C-3were marked. The learned Judge recorded findings on all issues, commencing from paras 28 to 37, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the suits are bound to fail and accordingly the same were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals were filed and one such appeal A.S. No. 116/96 filed on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as against O.S.No.606/83 was transferred and numbered as Tr. C.C.C.A. NO.105/98. 8. Since common evidence was recorded and common findings had been recorded, the questions involved in all these batch matters also being common, the following common points for consideration, referred infra, are being taken up for further appreciation:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are able to establish their title to plaint schedule properties in the respective suits? 2. Whether the defendants are able to establish their title to the respective properties on the strength of the sale deeds relied upon by them? 3. Whether the suits filed by the plaintiffs can be said to be within limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the damages, mesne profits and other ancillary reliefs inclusive of delivery of possession in the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 9. Point Nos.1 to 4:- These all are suits filed by appellants (here-in-after referred to as plaintiffs for the purpose of convenience) as against respondents (here-in-after referred to as defendants for the purpose of convenience) for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the respective plaint schedule properties. The respective pleadings of the parties and the issues settled in the respective suits already had been referred to supra. The Plaintiffs traced their title through the registered sale deed dated 27 -09-94 (27th Mehar 1323F) whereunder it is said that Nawab Shoukath Jung had purchased the property from Smt. Ghouseunnisa Begum in the name of Jaffer Ali khan otherwise known as Nawab Zaffar Nawaz Jung who is no other than his son. The property in O.S. No. 80/81 is 522sq. The property in O.S. No. 80/81 is 522sq. yards and in 0.S.No.208/82 -300 sq. yards, O.S. No. 61/84-361 sq. yards, O.S. No. 208/82300 sq. yards. These are said to be in survey Nos. 174 and 177 as far as O.S. No. 80/81 is concerned and in all other suits these properties are said to be in S. No. 177. The stand taken by the defendants is that one late Balaiah was the owner of these properties which he got by virtue of delivery of possession effected through process of Court in the year 1967 and the specific stand taken by them is that the property is covered by S. No. 174 only and not by S. No. 177 and inasmuch as even from the date of delivery of possession of S. No. 174 to Balaiah in 1967 if it is the time to be reckoned with the suits are hopelessly barred by limitation. In substance, this appears to be the respective stands taken by the parties. Though the oral evidence available on record is limited, voluminous documentary evidence was relied upon by the parties. The oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs is that of P.W.1 - Syed Murtuza Ali Moosavi. As against this evidence, the evidence of D.W.1 S.Rajamalia Reddy; D.W.2 - Ramakrishna Reddy;D.W.3-Mohd. Ghouse; D.W.4 Madhusudhan Reddy; and D.W.5 - Abdul Kareem, is available on behalf of the defendants. It may be appropriate to have a look at the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and the same is as hereunder (Omitted):- 10. P .W.1 - the husband of plaintiff No.3 was examined on commission though he is the only witness who was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. This witness deposed about several factual details relating to the family. P.W.1 deposed that late Nawab Shaukat Jung had purchased the lands in Nizamguda in Khairatabad village in the name of his minor son Jaffar Ali Khan under the guardianship of his mother Mohammadi Begum from Smt. Gousinnisa Begum. P.W.1 also deposed that Nizamguda lands belonged to Hazratha Waheedunnisa Begum also known as Badi Begum Saheba, the grandmother of late Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, the 7th Nizam. This witness also had given the other details and further deposed that the sale deed was registered on 27th Mehar, 1323 Fasli. The original sale deed together with plan was filed in O.S.2616/77 on the file of III Asst. This witness also had given the other details and further deposed that the sale deed was registered on 27th Mehar, 1323 Fasli. The original sale deed together with plan was filed in O.S.2616/77 on the file of III Asst. Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad. The certified copy of the sale deed with the plan was marked as EX.A-1. EX.A-2 is its translation. EX.A-3 is the certified copy of the plan attached to Ex. A-1. 11. P.W.1 also deposed that Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum had her own office of her estate and her estate was being managed by her brother Mohmood Nawaz Jung. The purchase of land plot A and B we recognized by the estate of Waheedunnisa Begum and the name of Mohd. Jaffar Ali Khan was mutated and a letter dt. 22 Farwardi 1324 Fasli was addressed by the estate to Mohd. Jaffar Ali Khan relating to mutation along with letter Pauti Behi was sent to him. EX.A-4 is the said letter and EX.A-5 is its translation. The original Pauti Behi is filed in 0.S.2616n7 on the file of III Asst. Judge, C.C C., Hyderabad and the certified copies of the entries of Pauti Behi are Ex. A-6 to EX.A-21 and the English translations as Ex. A- 23 to EX.A-36. This witness also deposed about the assessment of the properties for land revenue and death of Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum. P.W.1 also deposed after her death, report was submitted by Sarrekhas authorities to late 7th Nizam stating that one Rajeshwar Rao, Karperdaz in the estate of Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum was transferring the lands and he also wrote a letter to one Hanmanth Reddy stating that the lands at Nizamguda were released by Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum. A Firman was issued by the 7th Nizam directing to take over the charge and custody of the estate of Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum including the Nizamguda lands. EX.A-37 is the certified copy of the said Firman dt.13th Tir 1328 Fasli. EX.A-38 is the translation of EX.A-37. Through the Firman Rajeshwar Rao was directed to be removed form service and also directed for enquiry. In compliance of the Firman, the possession of the entire estate of Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum was taken over including the Nizamguda lands and panchanama was conducted. EX.A-39 is the certified copy of the letter issued by the Collector (Awal Taluqdar, Dist. Atraf Balda) dt. Tir Meh-e-liahi 1328 Fasli to the Tahsildar, Tq. In compliance of the Firman, the possession of the entire estate of Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum was taken over including the Nizamguda lands and panchanama was conducted. EX.A-39 is the certified copy of the letter issued by the Collector (Awal Taluqdar, Dist. Atraf Balda) dt. Tir Meh-e-liahi 1328 Fasli to the Tahsildar, Tq. North directing the Tahsildar to take over possession of the entire estate of Hazrath Waheedunnisa Begum. EX.A-40 is the English translation of Ex. A-39. At the time of panchanama it written statement found that certain plot of land in Nizamguda is in possession of Nawab ShaukatJung father of Mohd. Jaffar Ali Khan and Framoz Jung. The enquiry in accordance with Firman was conducted by the Dy. Collector Atraf Balda Hyderabad. Dist. The original patta documents were produced by Nawab ShaukatJung before the Dy. Collector. A letter dated 1st Behman 1330 Fasli issued by Supdt. To Mr. U. Kaff marking a copy thereof to Nawab Shaukat Jung asking him to produce the documents and to explain the source of his title to the land etc. Ex. A-41 is the certified copy of that letter and Ex.42 is its translation. After purchase of the land by Shaukat Jung, he obtained permission of construction under Ex. A-43 dt. 30th Khurdad 1324 Fasli. EX.A-44 is its translation. The said Nawab constructed the building known as Jaffar Mansion situated at Begumpet, Nizamguda, Hyderabad. This witness further deposed that the bungalow referred in EX.A-41 is the same building which is known as Jaffer Mansion. EX.A-45 is a certified copy of the letter dt. 8th Isfandar 1330 Fasli addressed by Second Taluqdar (Dowam Taluqdar) to Awal Taluqdar (Collector) accepting the title and possession of Mohd. Jaffar Ali Khan, S/o Shaukat Jung. EX.A-46 is its translation. During the enquiry the Sadar Doroga (Head watchman) reported about the existence of bungalows including the bungalow of U.Gauff and Shaukat Jung. Ex. A-47 is the certified copy of the report, Ex. A-48 is its translation. Es. A-49 is the certified copy of the letter dt. 19th Azur 1331 Fasli from Supt. Baghat Sarfekhas to the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, Whether U. Gauff and Shaukat Jung Bahadur are depositing land revenue in the Tahsil Office or not. EX.A-50 is its translation. Ex. A-51 is the certified copy of the letter dt. 21 Tir 1332 Fasli issued by Supdt. Baghat to Nawab Shaukat Jung office regarding deposit of land revenue (pan). Baghat Sarfekhas to the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, Whether U. Gauff and Shaukat Jung Bahadur are depositing land revenue in the Tahsil Office or not. EX.A-50 is its translation. Ex. A-51 is the certified copy of the letter dt. 21 Tir 1332 Fasli issued by Supdt. Baghat to Nawab Shaukat Jung office regarding deposit of land revenue (pan). EX.A-52 is its translation. EX.A-53 is the certified copy of the letter dt.28th Mehar 1332 Fasli addressed by Secretary of estate Nawab Shaukat Jung to Supdt. Baghat informing him about the depositing of land revenue in Tahsil west upto 1331 Fasli and from 1332 Fasli will be deposited in your office. EX.A-54 is its translation. EX.A-55 to EX.A-59 are the certified copies of the correspondent in between office of Nawab Shaukat Jung and the Supdt. Baghat Sarfekhas. EX.A-60 to EX.A-64 are its translations respectively. Nawab Shaukat Jung died in the year 1944. The land is rocky. Jaffar Ali Khan obtained permission to construct a building on hillock from Hyderabad Municipality in 1343 Fasli. EX.A-65 is the certified copy of the said sanctioned plan. After the permission, Jaffar Ali Khan constructed 1/4th of the building. During Sarfekhas period, Bandu Best (Survey and Settlement) of Nizamguda land is taken place. The hillock on which incomplete building is constructed and surrounding lands are in survey No. 177 of village Khairatabad. No doubt some objection was raised relating to the marking of EX.A-37 to EX.A-65. P.W.1 also further deposed that the property known as Jaffar Mansion came to be comprised in S. No. 178 after Survey and Settlement. 12. P.W.1 also further deposed that in the year 1961 late Nawab Jaffar Nawaz Jung had sold the said Jaffar Mansion property. The lands in S. No. 177 with incomplete building and parts of land S. Nos. 174 and 175 were gifted by late Nawab Jaffar Nawaz Jung to his wife Smt. Amatul Fatima Begum in the year 1350 Fasli in lieu of Dower amount. The property gifted to his wife has been described as Qita Bey (part B). This Qita Bey property on survey and settlement came to be comprised in S. No. 177 and parts of 174 and 175. On the basis of Gift, Smt. Abatul Fatima Begum, W/o. Jaffar Nawaz Jung became the owner of the property and the donee was put in possession of the gift property by the donor. This Qita Bey property on survey and settlement came to be comprised in S. No. 177 and parts of 174 and 175. On the basis of Gift, Smt. Abatul Fatima Begum, W/o. Jaffar Nawaz Jung became the owner of the property and the donee was put in possession of the gift property by the donor. Smt. Amatul Fatima died on 2-3-65, the plaintiff No.2 her daughter succeeded the said property and she was in possession of the property. Nawab Jaffar Jung died on 29th August, 1965. After his death, one of his daughters plaintiff NO.3 herein had filed suit for partition being O.S. No. 15/67 on the file of the Chief Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad. The plaintiff NO.2 herein is the defendant NO.1 in the above referred suit. The plaintiff NO.1 is the defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.4 herein was defendant No.3 in that suit. Apart from them, other heirs were also party to the suit. The property at Nizamguda gifted in favour of Amatul Fatima Begum was not included in the above referred suit as the said property was not the Matrooka property of late Jaffar Nawaz Jung. The plaintiff NO.2 has put forth a claim of Rs. 1,00,000/towards the Mehar (dower amount) and the plaintiff No.3 herein asserted in that suit stating that the plaintiff No.2 is not entitled for the dower amount of her mother as the property of Nizamguda (Begumpet land) has already been gifted to her mother in lieu of dower amount. In that suit an issued was framed and decided that the plaintiff No.2 is not entitled for dower amount in view of the said gift. The Judgment was passed in that suit on 31-12-1973. The plaintiff No.2 filed C.C.C.A.No.129/74 on the file of High Court. During the tendency of the appeal Smt. Chandramma, Ramchandra Reddy, Vithal Reddy and Raj Reddy were trying to encroach over the property i.e., S. No. 177, parts of S. No. 174 and 175 of village Khairatabad at Punjagutta, Hyderabad. Plaintiff NO.2 represented to the plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 and 4 that she could not singly protect and maintain the said property and sought their help in that regard. It was agreed that the plaintiff NO.2 in view of help agreed to give Y2 share jointly to plaintiffs No.1, 3 and 4. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between them in August, 1974. 1, 3 and 4 that she could not singly protect and maintain the said property and sought their help in that regard. It was agreed that the plaintiff NO.2 in view of help agreed to give Y2 share jointly to plaintiffs No.1, 3 and 4. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between them in August, 1974. Thereafter, the plaintiffs NO.1 to 4 jointly entered into agreement of sale of the said property with plaintiff No.5 in September, 1974, this witness again deposed that 12th September, 1974. It was agreed in the agreement that sale deed will be executed after the disposal of the appeal by the High Court. At that time in Revenue record the names of Smt. Chandramma, Ramchandra Reddy, Vithal Reddy and Raj Reddy were found in pattedar column, but they were in possession of the said property. The plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 agreed to get the said entries rectified. The said four persons i.e., Smt. Ramchandra Reddy and others have no right, interest, title over the said property and they were not at all in possession. As per the terms of the agreement of sale dt.12-9-7 4, they already received the entire sale consideration from the purchaser i.e., plaintiff No.5 and they delivered the possession of he property agreed to be sold to him. Plaintiff NO.1 made an application to M .C. H., Hyderabad on 5-5-77 for the renewal of sanction granted under EX.A-65. The M.C.H., by letter dt. 5-8-77 has informed the plaintiff NO.1 that M.C.H., has no objection for continuation and completion of the construction of the building as per EX.A-65. EX.A-66 is the certified copy of the said letter. The land in S. No. 177 8 is rocky, uneven with pits and mounds ranging from five feet to fifteen feet in height and incomplete building was on billock. The plaintiff No.5 has undertaken the work of leveling the land for the purpose of approach to incomplete building in the year 1977. For the purpose of leveling a permission for blasting the rock was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the year 1980. Thereafter, the rocks were blasted. EX.A-67 is the certified copy of the permission dt. 4-3-1980. The land revenue is paid by the plaintiff. The Tehsildar Urban Tq., Hyderabad by a letter dt. For the purpose of leveling a permission for blasting the rock was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the year 1980. Thereafter, the rocks were blasted. EX.A-67 is the certified copy of the permission dt. 4-3-1980. The land revenue is paid by the plaintiff. The Tehsildar Urban Tq., Hyderabad by a letter dt. 24-10-1977 had directed the plaintiff No.1 and others to pay the arrears of land revenue of RS.2080/- in respect of S.No.177. EX.A-68 is the certified copy of demand amount under Ex.A.68 through challan dt. 11-11-78. EX.A-69 is the certified copy of the said challan. EX.A-70 is the certified copy of the land revenue payment receipt for the year 1978-79. The plaintiff NO.1 had made an application before the Collector, Hyderabad District for correction of revenue record filed against Mr. Vithal Reddy. Raj Reddy and Ramchandra Reddy. Smt. Chandramma had already made an application for deleting the names of Vithal Reddy and others and for mutating her name in revenue record. After due enquiry, the PA. to Collector by order dt. 29-8-80 allowed their petition directing the deletion of the name of Vithal Reddy and others and for mutating the names of late Jaffar Nawaz Jung in Khasra Pahani and consequent pahanies as pattedar and possessor of the land in S.No.177 and parts of S. Nos. 174 and175 of Nizamguda, Khairatabad village and remaining Nizamguda land declared as government land with a direction to record as government land. EX.A-71 is the certified copy of the order dt. 29-8-80. Against EX.A-71 Ramchandra Reddy filed R.O.R. No. 574/81 before Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records against Raj Reddy, Vithal Reddy and plaintiff NO.1 and Y. Kanya Kumari. The said Revision is dismissed vide order dt. 26-2-82. EX.A-72 is the certified copy of the order. That the order EX.A-71 is implemented in the pahanies for the years 1971-72 to 1977-78 which are marked as EX.A-73 to EX.A-77. 13. This witness also deposed that he heard about Balaiah but however had taken a stand that Balaiah is not concerned with the land in S. No. 174. This witness deposed about Mallamma filing a suit against Rasool Bee, Budhan Sahib and Mir Ahmed Khan for provision of 2 Bigah 37 years, the patta of the land 5 Bigah 37 yards was granted to her son Narsimloo in 1334 Fasli by Baghat Sarfekhas. This witness deposed about Mallamma filing a suit against Rasool Bee, Budhan Sahib and Mir Ahmed Khan for provision of 2 Bigah 37 years, the patta of the land 5 Bigah 37 yards was granted to her son Narsimloo in 1334 Fasli by Baghat Sarfekhas. The suit was dismissed and appeal also was dismissed and the Second Appeal was dismissed in the year 1952. In the said suit Mallamma had not mentioned any survey number nor made any reference with regard to survey No. 174. During the tendency of the suit a letter No. 997 dt. 15th Ardibehisht 1343 Fasli was sent by Mohtamim Bondobast (Supdt., Settlement) Sarfekhas Mubarak to the District Judge, Atraf Balda with plan. EX.A-78 is the C.C. of that letter. EX.A-79 is its English translation and EX.A-80 is the plan (C.C.). Ex. A-81 is the C.C. of statement showing the names of pattedar in S. No. 174 and 175 is dated 7th Amerdad 1344 Fasli. EX.A.82 is its English translation. In EX.A-81 the name of Nawab Shaukat Jung as possessor of the land measuring 27 guntas in S.No.17 4 mentioned as plot No.2, and the same is marked as EX.A-83 in EX.A-81. Similar entries in EX.A-81 that Shaukat Jung Bahadur is in possession of 19 guntas in S. No. 175 plot 2. After survey and settlement the land S. Nos. 174, 175 and 177 is described in acres and guntas. During the tendency of the suit filed by D. Mallamma, D. Balaiah had filed the suit O.S. No. 172/2/1352 Fasli against Narsing Rao, Pandu Ran and R. Balaiah, S/o Narsimloo. The said suit is re-numbered as O.S. No. 5/1 of 1951 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Hyderabad District. Finally the said suit again was made over to the Addl. Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad at Shah Ali Banda. The suit relates to the land S. No. 174 measuring 5 Bigahs 37 yards and Malgies and houses. The suit for declaration of title. D. Balaiah had no right to file such a suit for declaration when D. Mallamma had held that she had no title to the suit land mentioned above. During the tendency of the suit of Mallamma, she had sold the land to Ramkrishna father of Narsing Rao. The suit filed by D. Balaiah was decreed. He filed E.P. No. 16/1962 in O.S. No. 5/1/51. Certified copy of the E.P. is marked as EX.A-84. During the tendency of the suit of Mallamma, she had sold the land to Ramkrishna father of Narsing Rao. The suit filed by D. Balaiah was decreed. He filed E.P. No. 16/1962 in O.S. No. 5/1/51. Certified copy of the E.P. is marked as EX.A-84. In the E.P. EX.A-84 boundaries of the malgies and tiles houses and of the land S. No. 174 are mentioned. At that time there was no system of mentioning or describing the measurement of the land in Bigahs and Bams and yards, but the measurements of land were being described in acres and guntas. The malgies and titles houses shown by D. Balaiah in S. No. 122. The High Court did not grant the prayer for possession under order dt. 7-12-1961 in E.P. No. 16/1962 (at the S. R. Stage). EX.A-85 is the C. C. of said order. D. Balaiah died. D. Balaiah gave his evidence in EA No. 23 of 1963 dt. 19-6-1964 in E.P. No. 16/1962. EX.A-86 is the C.C. of that statement. There is no Revenue record in Surfekhas Bagat or in the Government to show that D. Mallamma or D. Balaiah as pattedar of land in S. No. 174. 14. This witness also deposed that during the tendency of E.P. No. 16/1962 Balaiah appointed one Madan Gopal Khandelwal as his G.P.A. and the said G.PA had sold the entire land in S. No. 122 and S. No. 174 in favour of Bansidhar under a registered sale deed dt. 26th September 1967. EX.A-87 is the C.C. of the sale deed. EX.A-88 is the C.C. of plan attached to EX.A-87. He heard the name of one Karamat Ali as D. Balaiah appointed him as his G.P.A. The said Karamat Ali had sold a portion of land measuring 1224 sq. yards to one Nilini Bai under registered sale deed dated 30th April, 1969. EX.A-89 is the C.C. of the sale deed and EX.A-90 is the C.C. of the plan attached to EX.A-89. Subsequently Nilini Bai sold the said land to one Mohd. Ibrahim Khan under a registered sale deed dated 15-10-1970. EX.A-91 is the C.C. of the said sale deed and Ex. A-92 is the C.C. of the plan attached to EX.A-91. P.W.1 also further deposed in relation to the other documentary evidence also in detail. Subsequently Nilini Bai sold the said land to one Mohd. Ibrahim Khan under a registered sale deed dated 15-10-1970. EX.A-91 is the C.C. of the said sale deed and Ex. A-92 is the C.C. of the plan attached to EX.A-91. P.W.1 also further deposed in relation to the other documentary evidence also in detail. P.W.1 deposed that EX.A-93 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by D. Mallamma in favour of R. Ramkrishna dated 8th Tir 1346 Fasli. EX.A-94 is the certified copy of the plan attached to EX.A-93. There is no reference of any survey numbers in EX.A-93 and EX.A-94 and the area of the land is shown as 5 Bigahs 37 yards. This sale deed was executed by D. Mallaiah during the tendency of her suit against Rasool Bee, Budhan Sahib and Ahmed Khan. She filed the said suit for recovery of possession of the land 2 Bigahs 37 yards out of her land 5 Bigahs 37 yards, starting that Rasool Bee was in possession of one Bigah seven yards and Budhan Sahib was in possession of 1 Bigah 30 yards. There is a note in EX.A-93 that the original of EX.A-93 was cancelled as per decree in O.S. No. 5/11 1951 dt. 28th November, 1951. In EX.A-94 the eastern boundary of the land is shown as Road to Kokalpally and on west it is mentioned as land of Rahmat Ali and on southern side the land of Basilal and on north the land of Bagat. This witness also deposed that there is difference in plan EX.A-94 and Ex. A-88. The land of Ahmed Ali Khan shown on southern side in EX.A-88 and the same was shown as land of Bagat in EX.A-94. This witness also deposed about Qamrunnisa Begum being the wife of Mir Ahmed Ali Khan who filed a suit O.S. No. 49/61 against Chandramma for declaration of title of her land 3630 sq. yards in S. No. 174 in Nizamguda near Panjagutta, Hyderabad on the file of IV Addl. Judge, C.C.C, Hyderabad. The said suit was decreed on 30-8-62. EX.A-95 is the certified copy of the Judgment. Chandramma filed appeal C.C.CA No.7 4/1962 on the file of High Court against the Judgment EX.A-95. The said appeal is also dismissed on 27-10-1967. Certified copy of the Judgment is EX.A-96. This witness also heard the name of Dr. Abbas Ali. Judge, C.C.C, Hyderabad. The said suit was decreed on 30-8-62. EX.A-95 is the certified copy of the Judgment. Chandramma filed appeal C.C.CA No.7 4/1962 on the file of High Court against the Judgment EX.A-95. The said appeal is also dismissed on 27-10-1967. Certified copy of the Judgment is EX.A-96. This witness also heard the name of Dr. Abbas Ali. His elder brother S/o. Mulla Fide Ali had purchased part f land 1307.44 square yards in S. No. 174 from Rasool Bee. In Ex. A-88 on eastern side the land of Mulla Fida Ali has been shown. Dr. Abbas Ali filed a suit O.S. No. 39/64 on the file of IV Addl. Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad against Y. Vanajaxi and others for declaration of title. The suit is decree on30-11-1968. EX.A-97 is its certified copy. The land covered by Ex.A-89, 90, 91 and 92 is Bagath Sarfekhas land and it is not in land claimed by Balaiah nor in the sale deed Ex.A-93, 94. The land covered by Ex.A-89, 90, 91 and 92 is on the southern side of the land of Mir Ahmed Ali Khan. There is no document to show that the land in Ex. A-88 claimed by Balaiah was his land. In Ex. A-84 (E.P.) the northern boundary of S. No. 174 is shown as bungalow of Shaukat Jung and on south Police Station is mentioned. On western side the bungalow of Khaja Abndul Aziz is shown and on eastern side the open land of D. Balaiah and bungalow of Lalji Meghji is shown. EX.A-98 is the certified copy of the plan of the property of Rasool Bee, W/o. Rahmat Ali showing the property sold by her to Bande Ali filed by Dr. Abbas Ali in O.S. No. 39/64. The land of Rahmat Ali has been shown in EX.A-94 on eastern side wrongly shown on western side in EX.A-98. There appears t be some controversy whether the deposition EX.A.99 can be marked or not on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the said person died. This witness also further deposed that D. Balaiah executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sanjiva Reddy on 10-5-68 transferring the land measuring 3778 Sq. Yards showing survey No. 174. EX.A-100 is the certified copy of the sale deed. EX.A-101 is the plan attached to EX.A-100. This witness also further deposed that D. Balaiah executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sanjiva Reddy on 10-5-68 transferring the land measuring 3778 Sq. Yards showing survey No. 174. EX.A-100 is the certified copy of the sale deed. EX.A-101 is the plan attached to EX.A-100. This witness specifically deposed that the land covered by EX.A-100 is in S. No. 177 and the said land was in their possession as on 10-5-68. 15. This witness also further deposed that as on the date of EX.A-100 D. Balaiah through his G.P .A. - Madan Gopal Khanhdelwal under EX.ft..-88. H. Sanjiva Reddy had sold the land measuring 522 Sq. Yards to defendant NO.1 in O.S. No. 80/81 on 26-1 0-77. The defendant No.1 had applied to the M.C.H., for construction of house on suit land 522 Sq. Yards. They coming to know the said attempt of defendant No.1 issued a notice in February, 1980 stating that the land belongs to them and the same is part of S. No. 177 and also referred to the earlier renewal of sanction of M.C.H., given to them issued on 5-8-77. Accordingly, the M.C.H., authority refused the sanction applied by defendant NO.1 through letter dt.19-3-80 stating that the land belongs to Jaffar Nawaz Jung. EX.A.1 02 is the C.C. of that letter. The defendant NO.1 made a representation against EX.A-102 stating that the land comes in S. No. 174 and the lands of Jaffer Ali Khan are in S. Nos. 176 and 177, the land S. No. 176 does not belong to Jaffer Nawaz Jung. Ex. A-103 is its C.C. of representation. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 tried to illegally occupy the suit land in O.S.No.80/81 with the help of Mohd. Ibrahim Khan and defendant NO.1s father was Police Officer. So they filed a suit for injunction O.S. No. 1710/80 before the 7th Asst. Judge against defendant NO.1 and Ibrahim Khan and in that suit interim injunction was granted on 12-5-80; subsequently the injunction is vacated on 11-8-1980. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 illegally obtained permission from M.C.H., on 16-10-80. The C.C. of permission is EX.A-104. EX.A-105 is the C.C. of the plan attached to Ex.A-104, with the influence of Ibrahim Khan. They filed C.M.A. No. 348/80 on the file of Chief Judge, C.C.C., which was also dismissed on 13-11-1980. 16. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 illegally obtained permission from M.C.H., on 16-10-80. The C.C. of permission is EX.A-104. EX.A-105 is the C.C. of the plan attached to Ex.A-104, with the influence of Ibrahim Khan. They filed C.M.A. No. 348/80 on the file of Chief Judge, C.C.C., which was also dismissed on 13-11-1980. 16. This witness also deposed that defendant NO.1 started making construction with the help of her father and hence they filed O.S.No.80/81 for declaration and possession. A Commissioner was appointed in I.A. No.139/81. The order is EX.C-1. The report of the Commissioner is EX.C-2. EX.C-3 is the plan attached to EX.C-2. The photos are EX.A-106 and EX.A-107. EX.A-108 and EX.A-1 09 are the negatives. EX.A-110 is the receipt issued by Deccan Studio. This witness also deposed that Mohd. Ghouse is claiming ownership of the land alleging that he purchased the land from Satyanarayana, S/o. Balaiah in 1978 giving the house number but there is no such number at all. This witness also deposed that when he commenced from digging, they made representation to M.C.H., in 1979 objecting to the same and requesting them not to sanction the plan. M.C.H. asked them to produce the documents of title as well as that of Mohd. Ghouse and they submitted the documents. D.1 had not filed any document before the M.C.H. D.2 had not mentioned the source of his title to the suit land in O.S. No. 1246/82 but defendant NO.1 illegally started construction of house overthe suit land as D.1 was Police Officer in P.S. Panjagutta at that time. This witness also deposed about the filing of O.S.No.2603/80 on the file of 7th Assistant Judge which was transferred to V Add!. Judge and numbered as O.S. No. 1246/82 and later the same was transferred to the Additional Chief Judge and numbered as O.S. No. 606/83 and this witness also deposed that the same was transferred to the I Addl. Judge and renumbered as O.S. No. 1246/82. 17. This witness also deposed about certain criminal cases. The certified copy of the plan is EX.A-111 and EX.A-111 (A) is the premises covered by 0.S.No.1246/82 shown as S. No. 177. EX.A-111 (b) is the building on hillock belonging to them. Judge and renumbered as O.S. No. 1246/82. 17. This witness also deposed about certain criminal cases. The certified copy of the plan is EX.A-111 and EX.A-111 (A) is the premises covered by 0.S.No.1246/82 shown as S. No. 177. EX.A-111 (b) is the building on hillock belonging to them. This witness also deposed that in O.S. No. 208/82 Shah Bee claimed that she had purchased the suit land from O. Satyanarayana showing the suit land as part of S. No. 174 and she stated that she purchased the land in the year 1978. In the said sale deed it is shown as though the premises was in existence for the last 30 years. On the date of the sale deed the plaintiffs were in possession of the land covered by the sale deed. In1979 there was no such number in existence at all. On the basis of the sale deed the first defendant approached M.C.H., for sanction of plan and the plaintiffs gave notice to M.C.H., not to grant permission. M.C.H. authority issued letter to 0.1 refusing permission and asking her to get her title declared in a court of law. The first defendant tried to dispossess them from the suit land and hence they filed suit O.S.No.3654/80 on the file of IX Asst. Judge for injunction and the suit was transferred to V Additional Judge and numbered as O.S.No.208/82. This witness also deposed that during the pendency of the suit, the first defendant illegally occupied the suit land and hence the same was amended praying for the relief of possession. This witness also deposed relating to the claim of mesne profits and the other aspects. 18. This witness further deposed about the filing of O.S. No. 61/84 for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and had reiterated the same stand. This witness deposed that in 1983 Pushpamala Devi Illegally occupied the suit land and started making construction and hence they filed the suit. 0.2 had no right at all over the suit land and O. Balaiah had no right or title with regard to either S. No. 177 or part of S. No. 174. This witness also deposed that G.R. Enterprises and others filed suit O.S. No. 997/83 on the file of II Add!. Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad against the plaintiffs NO.1 to 4 for specific performance and the suit was decreed on 27-12-83. This witness also deposed that G.R. Enterprises and others filed suit O.S. No. 997/83 on the file of II Add!. Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad against the plaintiffs NO.1 to 4 for specific performance and the suit was decreed on 27-12-83. The certified copy of the judgment is EX.A-113. The sale deed was executed by and it is EX.A.114. The names of the purchasers Le., plaintiff No.5 and others were mutated in the revenue record in respect of the lands in S. No. 177 and part of S. Nos. 174 and 175. The certified copy of the mutation statement is EX.A-115. Smt. Chandramma was claiming title to Nizamguda land including the land in S. No. 174, 175and 177. In 1957Chandramma and her husband were not recorded as pattedars of the said lands. The certified copy is marked as EX.A-116. Vithal Reddy and Narsimha Reddy filed injunction suit O.S.No.1208/77 against the first plaintiff in IV Asst. Judge in respect of lands in S. No. 177. At that time there was an incomplete house existing of the hillock in S.No.177. After Commissioners report that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land and the hillock house, the suit was got dismissed. They also filed restoration application and the same was dismissed. Certified copy of the order is Ex.A.117. There was correspondence in between Sarfekhas Mubarak and Shoukat Jung relating to the dispute of land revenue. Ex. A-116 to Ex.A-120, EX.A-122 and EX.A- 124 are the certified copies thereof. Exs.A-119, 121, 123 and 125 are English translations. EX.A-126 is the photograph and EX.A-127 is the negative. EX.A-128 is bill of the photograph. This witness also deposed about the reliefs which had been prayed for in O.S. No. 80/81. The plaintiffs have been declared as successors and heirs of late Nawab Jaffer Nawaz Jung in O.S. No. 15/67 on the file of Chief Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad. This witness deposed that if required, he will file the Judgment made in the said suit. The said suit is pending and the suit is for partition of Matrooka left by Jaffar Nawaz Jung. This witness also deposed about the other oral and documentary evidence available on record in detail. 19. This witness in cross- examination deposed that he is giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and if necessary he will examine other witnesses also. The said suit is pending and the suit is for partition of Matrooka left by Jaffar Nawaz Jung. This witness also deposed about the other oral and documentary evidence available on record in detail. 19. This witness in cross- examination deposed that he is giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and if necessary he will examine other witnesses also. But for reasons best known none others had been examined though voluminous documentary evidence was produced. This witness also deposed in cross-examination that there was a claim of ownership of Ramchandra Reddy, Vithal Reddy, Raj Reddy and Qamrunnisa Begum in respect of land in S. No. 174. Similarly Dr. Abid Ali claimed land in S. No. 174. The land in S. No. 174 was in possession of various people. Since long, various people were in possession of the land in S. No. 174. This witness deposed that it is correct to say that the first defendant purchased the suit land from H. Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate and they did not make H. Sanjeeva Reddy as party to the suit. D. Balaiah obtained decree against Narsing Rao. D. Mallamma filed a suit against Rasool Bee and Budhan Sahib stating that the said Rasool Bee and Budhan Sahib illegally occupied the land. The suit was dismissed and the appeal also was dismissed. Therefore the claim of D. Mallamma was limited to an extent of land 3 Bigah only. The total extent of S. No. 174 may be 4 acres and some guntas and the plaintiffs are concerned and they are in possession of 19 guntas of land in S.No.174. This witness also explained about EX.A-111 the plan of Survey Department and when a specific question was put to this witness relating to the delivery of possession effected in 1967 by the Court Bailiff in presence of Police and Revenue officials, this witness gave an answer that they had no knowledge about the same. 20. P.W.1 was cross-examined at length in relation to the other documentary evidence and several suggestions were put to him relating to the prior E.P. proceedings of Balaiah and delivery of possession of the property covered by those sale deeds under which the defendants are claiming title to the property and are asserting that they are in possession of these properties. P.W.1 was cross-examined at length in relation to the other documentary evidence and several suggestions were put to him relating to the prior E.P. proceedings of Balaiah and delivery of possession of the property covered by those sale deeds under which the defendants are claiming title to the property and are asserting that they are in possession of these properties. This witness deposed that the plaintiffs came to know in 1980 when the defendants applied for permission to M.C.H., and the permission was refused. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction. EX.A-130 is the office copy of the objection. However, this witness deposed that he does not remember what documents were filed in M.C.H. Office but he had specifically denied the suggestion deposing that it is not true to say that at the time of purchase of defendants 1 and 2 there was a house and defendants 1 and 2 applied for permission for remodeling and restructuring. 21. This witness in cross-examination further deposed that he does not know that in 1967 the possession was delivered to D. Balaiah by Court in presence of revenue officials and police but however this witness added that the suit property was not delivered. Thus the evidence of P. W.1 in relation thereto appears to be a bit vague. He had denied all the suggestions to the effect that he does not know several of the things which had been specified and this witness also deposed that it is not correct to say that he has no personal knowledge about the suit property and he also deposed that it is not true to suggest if he examines his wife she will speak the truth and to avoid truth coming before the Court he is not producing her as a witness. 22. A specific question was put to P.w.1 that "it is put to you that plaintiff NO.1 although was a major in 1967 when possession of the suit property was delivered to D. Balaiah, he knowing fully well did not object or protest against the delivery of possession to D. Balaiah? Answer: Firstly the plaintiff No.1 was not aware of delivery of possession to Balaiah and that the delivery of possession was not relating to the suit property. Answer: Firstly the plaintiff No.1 was not aware of delivery of possession to Balaiah and that the delivery of possession was not relating to the suit property. It is not true to say that the suit property was delivered to D. Balaiah, the plaintiff NO.1 was aware of it in spite of it he did not protest, I am deposing falsely on his behalf." 23. P.W.1 no doubt deposed that he does not remember whether any permission was obtained from the Court to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. P.W.1 also deposed that he is not having any power of attorney of plaintiffs to give evidence. This witness deposed that he had filed the documents to show that Nawab Shaukat Jung purchased 13 Bigahs and two bam into two plots A & B from Gousnnisa Begum under EX.A-1 -the certified copy of the sale deed and the original is EX.A-131. This witness specifically deposed that it is not true to suggest that EX.A-131 does not relate to suit land at all but however this witness deposed that it is true that there is no mention of survey number in EX.A-131. This witness however added that there were 3 old survey numbers. This witness also deposed that it is true that even the 3 old survey numbers are also not mentioned in EX.A-131. Several questions were put to this witness in relation to EX.A-131 most probably to establish that the said property is nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. This witness was cross-examined at length in relation to Ex.A-4, Ex.A-37, Ex.A-39, Ex.A-43, Ex.A-44, Ex.A-41, Ex.A-42, Ex.A-45, Ex.A-46, Ex.A-47, Ex.A-49, Ex.A-50, Ex.A-52, Ex.A-53, and EX.A-54. Several of the suggestions put to this witness were denied. This witness also was cross-examined in relation to EX.A-65 and in relation to S. No. 177 and S. No. 174 and also in relation to O.S. No. 15/67. This witness also deposed about O.S. No. 997/83 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the suit for specific performance which was decreed. This witness also deposed that the said suit is a collusive one. This witness further deposed that there is no plan attached to EX.A-114 and P.W.1 also deposed that it is true to say that EX.A-114 does not disclose which portion of survey No. 174 of Nizamguda village was sold to plaintiff NO.5. This witness also deposed that the said suit is a collusive one. This witness further deposed that there is no plan attached to EX.A-114 and P.W.1 also deposed that it is true to say that EX.A-114 does not disclose which portion of survey No. 174 of Nizamguda village was sold to plaintiff NO.5. No boundaries were mentioned in EX.A-114 but however this witness specifically deposed that it is not correct to say that EX.A-114 does not relate to the suit property. P.W.1 also deposed that it is not true to say that his entire evidence relating to Ex.A-65, Ex.A-66, Ex.A-67, Ex.A-68, Ex.A-69, EX.A-70 relates to different property. This witness also was cross-examined at length in relation to Ex.A-78, EX.A-79 and EX.A-86. P.W.1 also further cross-examined in relation to Ex.A-87, Ex.A-88, Ex.A-89, Ex.A-90, EX.A-100, EX.A-101, EX.A-112 and the other documents at length. All the suggestions put to this witness that several of the documents relied by him do not relate to the plaint schedule property no doubt had been specifically denied. That is the evidence of P.W.1 available on record. EX.A-114-the copy of sale deed dt. 13-8-86; EX.A-115 certified copy of the mutation statement; EX.A-116 - certified copy of the order passed by Nazim Sandi; EX.A-117 - certified xerox copyoftheorderdt.27-11-79in IA No. 1926/79 in O.S. No. 1208/77 also had been relied upon. Further the xerox copy of the letters and translation EX.A-118 to EX.A-125 and the photos and the negatives Ex.A-126, EX.A-127 and the bill relating thereto EX.A-128 also had been relied upon. Apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence EX.A-129the plan; EX.A-130 - office copy of legal notice dt. 18-2-80; EX.A-131 - original sale deed dt.27th Mehar 1323 Fasli executed by Ghousunnisa Begum; EX.A-131 (a) - the English translation of Ex.A-131; EX.A-132 original permit No. 1324; EX.A-133 - Pavthi Bahi regarding receipts for payment of annual land revenue in respect of the land at Nizamguda, Tahsil West, Dist. Atraf Balda; EX.A-134 - original plan of village No.29 Khairatabad, Hyderabad; EX.A-135- Triplicate challan; EX.A-136 - the original order of the proceedings No.81 Divn. V 180, dt.4-3-80, issuing blasting permit to Mohd. Abbas Hussain khan; EX.A-137 - original letter dt.5-8-77 of M.C.H. to the said Mohd. Abbas Hussain Khan and others; EX.A-138- the original express memo dt. 24-1 0-1977 issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk; EX.A-138 - Proceedings from the office of the Jagirat of Nawab Mohd. V 180, dt.4-3-80, issuing blasting permit to Mohd. Abbas Hussain khan; EX.A-137 - original letter dt.5-8-77 of M.C.H. to the said Mohd. Abbas Hussain Khan and others; EX.A-138- the original express memo dt. 24-1 0-1977 issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk; EX.A-138 - Proceedings from the office of the Jagirat of Nawab Mohd. Jawaz Jung Bahadur bearing NO.227 dt.22nd Farwardi 1324 Fasli and the English Translation is EX.A.139; the original receipt No. 9868264 is EX.A-141; EX.A-141 - the plan showing measurements; EX.A-142 - the certified copy of the deposition of witness NO.5 in C.C. No. 328/79; EX.A-142 (a) -the certified copy of the letter dt. 26-5-79 of Mohd. Ghouse, S.I of Police, Panjagutta to the Asst. City Planner, MCH, Hyderabad; EX.A-142 (b) - certified xerox copy of order in LGC No. 38/94; EX.A-143 and Ex:A-144 - the certified copies of the xerox memo of withdrawal and the other proceedings also has been relied upon. This is the oral and documentary evidence available on record on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that none of the plaintiffs had been examined and only the husband of plaintiff NO.3 was examined as P.W.1. 24. There is no other evidence forthcoming and it is no doubt true that several of the documents are very old documents more than 30 years old and may be because P. W.1 is just representing the 3rd plaintiff it can be taken that these documents are emanating from the proper custody. 25. However the main controversy appears to be in relation to the very identity of the property and also the assertion of the defendants that these specified portions had been taken delivery through process of Court by Balaiah, way back in the year 1967. 26. D.W.1 is the father of the first defendant in O.S. No. 80/81. This witness deposed that EX.B-1 is the registered G.P.A. executed by the first defendant in his favour and he is looking after the affairs of the first defendant. First defendant purchased the suit property from one Sanjeeva Reddy on 26-10-1977 under a registered sale deed for consideration under Ex. B-2. Ex. B-3 is the sale deed dt.10-5-68 under which Sanjeeva Reddy purchased the property from Balaiah. This witness also deposed that Balaiah got this land with some other land under Court decree in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 5/1/51 in E.P. No. 16/62. B-2. Ex. B-3 is the sale deed dt.10-5-68 under which Sanjeeva Reddy purchased the property from Balaiah. This witness also deposed that Balaiah got this land with some other land under Court decree in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 5/1/51 in E.P. No. 16/62. The possession was delivered through process of Court in 1967. The total extent of land is 18,000 sq. yards. Balaiah got permission from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad for construction of a Chowkidar room and out of the above land Sanjeeva Reddy purchased 3778 sq. yards along with Chowkidar room. EX.B-4 is the approved plan obtained by Balaiah for construction of Chowkidar room. This witness also deposed that Sanjeeva Reddy applied for Municipal Corporation with a lay-out for division of house plots and the same was approved by M.C.H. EX.B-5 is the Blue print of the layout. EX.B-6 is the challan. D.1 purchased 522 sq. yards situated adjacent to the cement road under EX.B-2. This witness also further deposed that EX.B-7 is the permit sanctioned by the M.C.H., in favour of Sanjeeva Reddy for construction of houses in the approved layout. D.1 after purchasing the site, applied M.C.H., for construction of a house. EX.B-8 is the challan under which D.1 paid money for sanction of the plan. EX.B-9 is the permit granted in favour of D.1 for construction and it is given on 10-10-1980. EX.B-9 relates to the construction of ground floor. After construction of ground floor, D.1 applied for permission for construction of 1st floor. Ex. B-10 is the approved plan for the construction of 1st floor. She also obtained permission from M.C.H., for construction of 2nd floor. Ex:B-11 is the approved plan for construction of Garage. EX.B-13 is the permit for construction of Garage. Ex. B-14 is the challan for payment of requisite fee for the garage. EX.B-15 is the approved plan for the drainage. EX.B-16 is the demand notice for payment of non-agricultural assessment tax from 1963to 1989. EX.B-17 is the receipt for payment of NALA tax. EX.B-18 is the certified copy of the order passed in E.A.23/63 in E.P. 16/62 in O.S. No. 5/1/1951 under Order 29 Rule 27 for removal of obstruction. Since the purchase of the property, D.1 has been enjoying the same till to date as absolute owner by paying all taxes and revenues due to the Government and Corporation. EX.B-18 is the certified copy of the order passed in E.A.23/63 in E.P. 16/62 in O.S. No. 5/1/1951 under Order 29 Rule 27 for removal of obstruction. Since the purchase of the property, D.1 has been enjoying the same till to date as absolute owner by paying all taxes and revenues due to the Government and Corporation. M.C.H. assessed the suit house and imposed tax and levied tax in the year 1982. EX.B-19 is the Assessment order of the M.C.H. EX.B-20 to EX.B-29 are the house tax receipts for payment of house tax paid by D.1 for the suit house. EX.B-30 is the intimation from APSEB on 21-10-1981 asking D.1 to pay respondents. 150/- towards consumption deposit. EX.B-31 & EX.B-32 are the water bills for the suit property. EX.B.33 is the receipt for respondents. 150/- paid to APSEB towards consumption deposit. EX.B-34 is the receipt passed by M.C.H., for giving drainage construction. EX.B-35 is the application of D.1 to M.C.H., forgiving drainage construction. EX.B-36 is the certified copy of the common Judgement in O.S. No. 3058/79, 3059/79, 3074/79, 4307/80, 4308/80, 4309/80. The Judgment passed against the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the plaintiff preferred appeal in a.S.243/89 on the file of ACJ (Temp) City civil Court, Hyderabad. EX.B-37 is the certified copy of Judgment in A.S.No.243/89, in which the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court was confirmed. EX.B-38 is the certified copy of the common Judgment in A.S.Nos. 243, 246,328, on the file of ACJ (Temp) City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One Venkatramaiah filed O.S.No.3058/79 against the 1st plaintiff for injunction. The 1st plaintiff filed in that suit a letter issued by Tahsildar stating that mutation was not effected by competent authority. EX.B-39 is the certified copy of the said letter which is marked as Ex. B-3 in that suit. One Kanyakumari filed O.S.No.261677 against plaintiff Nos. 1, 5 and another for injunction in which Kanyakumari got marked one proceedings issued by the government stating that mutation of the names of the plaintiffs herein in the Revenue Records as Es.A-15. EX.B-40 is the certified copy of EX.A-15 in that suit. EX.B-41 is the certified copy of Judgment of O.S.No.2616/77 on the file of 3rd Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit is decreed. The suit property purchased by D.1 is situated in survey No.174, Nizamguda, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. EX.B-40 is the certified copy of EX.A-15 in that suit. EX.B-41 is the certified copy of Judgment of O.S.No.2616/77 on the file of 3rd Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit is decreed. The suit property purchased by D.1 is situated in survey No.174, Nizamguda, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. This witness also deposed about the proceedings in O.S.No.1710/80 and had taken a specific stand that it is not true to say that Hazrat Waheedunnisa Begum, grand mother of late HEH Nizam 7th was the owner and possessor of the land covered by S.No.174, 186 and 187, known as Nizamguda situated at Khairatabad. This witness also had taken specific stand that the plaintiffs were never in possession even prior to the delivery of possession to Balaiah. Even otherwise, D.1 and her predecessors in title have been in continuous and uninterrupted and enjoyment of the property without any objection whatsoever and thus obtained title even by adverse possession. Pushpamala Devi, the first defendant in O.S.No.61/84, is the mother-in-law of D.1 and this witness also deposed several of the particulars in cross-examination relating to his family affairs. 27 to 30. Cross-examination of D.W.1 - Omitted. 31. D. W.2 is the witness who deposed that he worked as Patwari from 1954 to 1970-71 for Begumpet area and from 1971 to 1982-83 as Patwari for Khairatabad and he knows the defendants in all the above suits and they own lands in survey No. 174. This witness also deposed that he was present when the time the lands were delivered by the Bailiff. In September, 1967 the Bailiff brought a warrant for delivery of land. One Dasarath was Patwari at that time. Since this witness was Patwari of the adjacent village, he was also present. Bailiff asked the Patwari to locate survey No. 174. With the help of Surveyor the boundaries of survey No. 174 were fixed. Under panchanama, the Bailiff delivered the possession of the land to the representative of Balaiah. From 1971 onwards, he used to collect the land revenue for survey NO.174 also. The plaintiff never paid land revenue to him for the land covered by survey No. 174. The representative of Balaiah used to pay the land revenue for survey No. 174. This witness was cross-examined. From 1971 onwards, he used to collect the land revenue for survey NO.174 also. The plaintiff never paid land revenue to him for the land covered by survey No. 174. The representative of Balaiah used to pay the land revenue for survey No. 174. This witness was cross-examined. No doubt this witness deposed that at present he is not having any record to show that he was Patwari for Khairatabad and he did not bring any record and he did not receive any summons from Court and he was called by Mohd. Ghouse, defendant in O.S. No. 1246/82. This witness also deposed in cross-examination that he knows Nizamguda lands located in Panjagutta area and they come under Khairatabad village. From 1973 onwards, the village records were in his possession. The lands covered by survey Nos. 119/2, 122, 174 to 186 are in Nizamguda. He does not know the extent of the above lands as Acs.66-20 gts. This witness was cross-examined at length relating to the revenue records. This witness deposed that in 1980 he handed over the record to his successor Dasarath. His predecessor was Baburao. Till 1971 Dasarath was Patwari for Khairatabad village. This witness also deposed that the above referred lands in survey numbers are in the names of Ramchandra Reddy, Raji Reddy and Vittal Reddy in Pahani patrikas. These entries were being carried forward in their names even prior to taking of his charge. These entries are described in acres and guntas. This witness also deposed that earlier the lands in Khairatabad had been with in Sarfekhas area and after the merger of Surfekhas Devani, Khairatabad village came into Tahsil West, Taluk of Hyderabad District. This witness deposed that he does not know whether the Surfekhas authorities had granted pattas to an extent of part of the land to different persons in survey No. 174. He came to know about Shaukat Jung at the time of effecting correction in Pahani patrikas. He does not know whether he is the father of Jaffar Nawaj Jung. This witness also deposed that the does not remember whether he gave evidence in C.C. No. 328/79 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This witness also deposed that he might have deposed that he was working as Patwari for Khairatabad for the last5 years. He does not know whether he is the father of Jaffar Nawaj Jung. This witness also deposed that the does not remember whether he gave evidence in C.C. No. 328/79 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This witness also deposed that he might have deposed that he was working as Patwari for Khairatabad for the last5 years. This witness also deposed that he does not remember whether he gave evidence in criminal case that there are more than 200 hours in survey No. 174 as in EX.A-142. This witness also was cross-examined relating to the geographical features and also about the panchanama and the delivery said to have been effected to the representative of Balaiah. Certain of the suggestions put to this witness had been denied. 32. D.W.3 is the first defendant in O.S. No. 606/83. This witness deposed that he purchased the house property comprising of 2 rooms in an extent of 360 sq. yards from D. Satyanarayana (2nd defendant) in S. No. 174 of Panjagutta under a registered sale deed dt.8-8-1978 for Rs.6,000/-. Soon after the purchase of the property, the possession of the property was delivered to him. The house is bearing door No.6-3-883/A/1/1. Since the date of delivery, he has been enjoying the same as absolute owner thereof to the knowledge of everyone. He has been paying taxes due to the municipality and other departments. This witness deposed in relation to EX.B-42 which is the registered sale deed executed by D. Satyanarayana in his favour. EX.B-43 is the enclosed plan of EX.B-42. EX.B-44 is the sanctioned plan showing the existing constructions and the additional alterations for which the permit was sanctioned in respect of house bearing door No. 6-3-883/A/1/1. EX.B-46 is the demand for NALA tax. EX.B-47 is the application drainage of premises addressed to Engineer-in-charge, Drainage Dept., Hyderabad for carrying out the drainage work. EX.B-48 is the challan under which he paid Rs.10/- to M.C.H., towards bearing fee, for drainage and other works. Ex. B-49 is the plan showing the sanitary proposals. EX.B-50 to EX.B-52 are the Municipal Corporation Tax receipts under which he paid the house tax. EX.B-53 is the sanction of executive Engineer for Tap connection. EX.B-54 is the challan under which he paid money to Water works Dept., for obtaining the tap connection. EX.B-55 is the sanctioned plan for the water connection. EX.B-50 to EX.B-52 are the Municipal Corporation Tax receipts under which he paid the house tax. EX.B-53 is the sanction of executive Engineer for Tap connection. EX.B-54 is the challan under which he paid money to Water works Dept., for obtaining the tap connection. EX.B-55 is the sanctioned plan for the water connection. EX.B-56 to EX.B-58 are the receipts under which he paid electricity charges for his electrical service connection. EX.B-59 is the letter addressed to him by the Electricity Board demanding him to deposit RS.30/- as security deposit for giving service connection. EX.B-60 and EX.B-61 are the tax receipts for payment of water charges to Water Works Department. Certain other details had been elicited in the further chief-examination and this witness was cross-examined at length in relation to both oral and documentary evidence already available on record. Suggestions were put to him that the bogus document had been obtained and Balaiah himself had no title over the property and several other details had been elicited through this witness. Several of the suggestions put to this witness are on the same lines as they were put to D.W.1. 33. D.WA is the husband of the first defendant in O.S.No.61/84. This witness deposed about EX.B. 72 - the original receipt; EX.B-73- the permission letter; EX.B-74 another permission letter from M.C.H; EX.B-75 - receipt from M.C.H.; EX.B-76 Municipal Tax receipt; Ex. B-77 - Municipal tax receipt; EX.B-78 - Municipal tax receipt; EX.B-79 - yet another similar receipt; EX.B-80 -assessment letter; EX.B-81-Miscellaneous tax receipt; EX.B-82 - the new assessment letter; EX.B-83 - Miscellaneous tax receipt issued by M.C.H. This witness also deposed that the original sale deed in favour of his wife was misplaced. They had searched well but they could not find and hence they obtained the certified copy from the Registration office and the same was marked as EX.B-84, he had taken a specific stand that the plaintiffs have no right or title or possession over the property purchased by his wife. This witness deposed that he does not Balaiah and he also does not know D.3 and he also does not know personally D.2. The first defendant in O.S.No.80/81 is his daughter-in-law and this witness also deposed about the other relationship and the other details. This witness was cross-examined in relation to EX.B-84 at length. This witness also was cross-examined at length in relation to boundaries. The first defendant in O.S.No.80/81 is his daughter-in-law and this witness also deposed about the other relationship and the other details. This witness was cross-examined in relation to EX.B-84 at length. This witness also was cross-examined at length in relation to boundaries. This witness deposed that there is difference in the boundaries mentioned in EX.B-84 and boundaries now stated by him. This witness also was cross-examined in relation to Ex.B-73, Ex.B-74, EX.B-78 to EX.B-81 and certain answers were elicited. The suggestions put to this witness had been denied. 34. D.W.5 is the second defendant in O.S.No.208/82 and the first defendant is his wife and they purchased the house in the name of the first defendant and the said property was purchased from D. Satyanarayana, S/o Balaiah. EX.B-85 is the registered sale deed dt.9-8-78. In EX.B-85 the house number was mentioned with specific boundaries. This witness also deposed that Balaiah got the property through High Court Judgment. EX.B-86 is the Municipal notice, EX.B-87 is the revised plan. On the reverse of the EX.B-87 there is a sanction of Municipal Corporation. EX.B-88 is the permit for construction of the said house given by M.C.H. EX.B-89 is another permit application dated 25-2-81. The tax receipts are EX.B-90 and EX.B-91. EX.B-92 is the non-agricultural assessment. EX.B-93 is the notice from City Planner. This witness also reiterated that Balaiah got possession of the property through process of Court. The certified copy of the Judgment is filed in the connected suit marked as EX.B-65, EX.B-62 and EX.B-64. EX.B-65 is the delivery of possession of Balaiah in E.A.No.95/76 in E.P No. 27/76. In EX.B-65 survey No. 174 is specifically mentioned, showing the location at Panjagutta. This witness also deposed that he had taken some advise from an Advocate before purchasing the property and certain other details. This witness also was cross-examined, virtually, on the same lines as that of D.W. 1, DW.3and D.W.4. 35. Thus, in substance, from the over all appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the specific stand taken by the respective parties appear to be very clear. This witness also was cross-examined, virtually, on the same lines as that of D.W. 1, DW.3and D.W.4. 35. Thus, in substance, from the over all appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the specific stand taken by the respective parties appear to be very clear. On a careful analysis of the whole evidence available on record, the defendants virtually are commencing the tracing of the title from the sale deed of Sanjeeva Reddy anterior thereto at the best it can be said that by virtue of the delivery proceedings said to have been effected through the process of Court in the year 1971 and not beyond thereto. There is no clear evidence available relating to Balaiah's anterior title though certain judicial proceedings had been referred to. It may be that Balaiah had been fighting some litigation and in pursuance thereof delivery of possession was effected through process of Court. There appears to be some controversy between the parties even relating to the identity of the property and also even in relation to the survey numbers. Voluminous documentary evidence had been placed by P.W.1, most probably to trace the title from the original ancestors to the whole village as such and several subsequent documents also had been relied upon. It is no doubt true that several of the documents are very old documents, more than 30 years old, and the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act may be available in relation thereto. However, P. W.1 had taken a stand that he was willing to examine further witnesses but for reasons best known he had not chosen to do so. The crucial aspect appears to be relating to the identity of the property and also in relation to the aspect whether the delivery proceedings relied upon pertaining to the self-same property or not. Under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act no doubt presumption would be available that in normal course the official acts be taken to have been done properly in accordance with law. The evidence of D.W.2 is available relating to the delivery of possession. Under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act no doubt presumption would be available that in normal course the official acts be taken to have been done properly in accordance with law. The evidence of D.W.2 is available relating to the delivery of possession. In the light of the voluminous documentary evidence placed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the event of the plaintiffs being of the opinion that under the guise of some decree as against an uncovered property the decree was put into execution and possession had been taken by either Balaiah or representative of Balaiah, it is needless to say that the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish the same. At least from the year 1967 onwards and subsequent thereto, there is some evidence available on record that Balaiah and the purchasers from Balaiah alone have been in possession of the respective properties covered by the schedules in the respective suits. The years of purchase no doubt are varying. It is also true that in relation to the sale deeds except the interested testimony of the father, the husband of the party or the like, except the evidence of D.W.2, there is no other independent evidence forthcoming even on behalf of the defendants. Dasarath was not examined though D.W.2 had deposed about the said Dasarath. None of the attestors relating to the sale transactions and at least the vendor had been examined. The son of Balaiah could have as well explained the anterior title of the family of Balaiah prior to 1967. For reasons best known, such evidence is not forthcoming. On a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, certain findings had been recorded and ultimately the suits were dismissed. All the documents had not been considered for the reason, most probably, that they may not be so relevant for the purpose of these cases. For reasons best known, such evidence is not forthcoming. On a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, certain findings had been recorded and ultimately the suits were dismissed. All the documents had not been considered for the reason, most probably, that they may not be so relevant for the purpose of these cases. Order XLI Rule24 of the C.P.C. dealing with Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally reads as hereunder:- "Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resetting the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the Judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred had proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.." In Venkatasubba Rao v. Goteti Vigneswaradu and others1 it was held that in a suit for ejectment even though the defendant has no title, he can still put the plaintiff to the proof of his title and the plaintiff has still to show that the title- deed on which he relies as having given him a title superior to that of the defendants is a valid one. In M.M.B. Catholicos v. M.P. Athanasius2 while dealing with ejectment suit and the burden of proof, the Apex Court held that the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title and this can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his case or not and a mere destruction of the defendant's title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere. In C. Audilakshmamma v. A. Rama Rao3 it was held that in a suit for ejectment the plaintiff is liable to be non suited if he fails to establish his own title irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. The Division Bench in the aforesaid decision also observed hereunder:- The factum of proper custody cannot itself be the subject-matter of any presumption and it should be satisfactorily proved and on an analysis of the provisions of Section 90 and its interpretation judicially, we may deducte the following propositions:- 1. That the presumption applies to documents proved to be 30 or more years old; 2. That the presumption applies to documents proved to be 30 or more years old; 2. the document must come from proper custody; 3. the presumption is discretionary and in cases where a document is exfacie suspicious, the Court may very well refuse to make the presumption and call upon the party to offer other proof forthwith; 4. the presumption can only be applied to documents which bear the signature of he writer or of witnesses and the presumption cannot be drawn in the case of unsigned or anonymous papers; 5. the extent of the presumption relates only to the signatures, execution or attestation of a document that is to say, its genuineness. The drawing of the presumption does not connote the idea that the contents of the documents are true or that they have been acted upon; and 6. the presumption applies only to original documents and not any copy thereof, certified or otherwise. 36. On over all appreciation of the facts of the case and also in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs were non-suited especially in the absence of sufficient evidence in support of the evidence of P.W.1. It is true that P.W.1 deposed about several of the old documents. May be the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act be made applicable, but that by itself may not be sufficient unless clear nexus is established relating to the property in question on the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. Several of the documents and the proceedings relied upon would probablize and point out that the stand taken by the plaintiffs may be true but however they are not so clear so as to arrive at a conclusion that the subject matter of these suits and the properties referred to those documents are one and the same or in the larger extent of the properties referred to in the documents these smaller extents also are inclusive of those properties. The possession is said to have been disturbed in the year 1967. Certain of the sale deeds are justa couple of years, just prior to the institution of the suit. The possession is said to have been disturbed in the year 1967. Certain of the sale deeds are justa couple of years, just prior to the institution of the suit. On the strength of such sale deeds, title is being claimed by the defendants and as already observed supra, no acceptable evidence is forthcoming in relation to the anterior title of the family of Balaiah. None concerned with the same had been examined for reasons best known to the defendants. It is true that the weakness in the case of the defendants in a suit for ejectment cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiffs. But several of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are very old and in fact of ancient origin. The stand taken by P.W.1 is that the plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiffs and the alleged delivery in favour of Balaiah had never taken place. Even otherwise it is to be taken as paper delivery only. The crucial aspect would be what happened subsequent to the year 1967 and what had been the conduct of the parties and who in fact had been in possession of these properties at least during the remaining period in between and whether the sale deeds in question were brought into existence only nominally for paltry consideration for the purpose of defeating the rights of the plaintiffs as contended by P. W.1 it is really unfortunate that P.W.1 having placed such voluminous documentary evidence to establish the title and also to probablize several of the incidental facts which would point out only in relation to the fact that in all probability this property also may belong to the same families, the subsequent necessary proof relating to the factum of possession and identity of property had not been clearly established. 37. Yet another aspect is the plea of adverse possession. It is needless to say that the plea relating to the claim of title by adverse possession or possessory title may come into play normally when the ownership is elsewhere. 37. Yet another aspect is the plea of adverse possession. It is needless to say that the plea relating to the claim of title by adverse possession or possessory title may come into play normally when the ownership is elsewhere. It is true that if it is the self-same property which was delivered in 1967, the question of limitation also may be operative but whether it is a delivery in fact or a paper delivery is also yet another question since except D. W.2 and another interested witness D. W.1 who is said to have been present at the spot, no other independent evidence in this regard is forthcoming. Though the delivery proceedings being official acts are prima facie taken to be true in the peculiar facts and circumstances and also in the light of the stand taken by P.W.1 that under the guise of a Decree for some property, the same was put into execution as against some other property, this is a matter which may have to be seriously considered especially in the light of the anterior title to the parties inasmuch as the plaintiffs are non-parties to the prior litigation which was instituted by the said Balaiah. 'Inasmuch as even the findings recorded by the learned Judge are not happily worded and also in the light of the voluminous overwhelming documentary evidence placed by P.W.1 though the suits are very old suits, this Court is of the considered opinion that these are fit matters where the plaintiffs be given yet another opportunity to establish by letting in further evidence in relation to the identity of the property and also in relation to the fact whether the delivery was only a paper delivery in the peculiar facts and circumstances. This view is being expressed only in the light of the fact that almost all the documents relied upon by the defendants appear to be of recent nature and except one sale deed, the other sale deeds are just of a couple of years back, prior to the institution of these suits. 38. This view is being expressed only in the light of the fact that almost all the documents relied upon by the defendants appear to be of recent nature and except one sale deed, the other sale deeds are just of a couple of years back, prior to the institution of these suits. 38. Point NO.5:- In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is left with no other option except to set aside the Decrees in all the suits and remand these matters for the purpose of affording opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence relating to the aspects referred to supra and to dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest point of time. Inasmuch as an order of remand is being made, the parties to bear their own costs.