JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. The suit O.S.No.90 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of possession, for mesne profits and for perpetual injunction. The trial Court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate and handover the physical possession of house bearing No.12-11-339/2, measuring 101 square yards, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, (hereinafter, ‘the suit schedule property’) and granted mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing suit to till the date of realisation and also granted perpetual injunction as sought for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the suit is filed for recovery of possession without seeking for declaratory relief in respect of the title over the suit schedule property is not maintainable. He would further contend that the trial Court failed to consider that the title of the defendant over the suit schedule property was inherited through registered conveyance deed. He would also argue that the trial Court erred in admitting Ex.A1 without giving weightage to the evidence on record and the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 was not appreciated properly and held that the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B3 have no evidentiary value, therefore, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that he filed suit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. It is his case that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed bearing Document No.813 of 1983 and he purchased the same from Smt.Khajabi, W/o.Rajabali. He is having three elder brothers and five sisters. The amount was obtained from one Marwadi Seth and purchased the suit schedule property, for which his mother kept him as a servant for five years. After the purchase of the property, his mother died. He is having three elder brothers and five sisters. The amount was obtained from one Marwadi Seth and purchased the suit schedule property, for which his mother kept him as a servant for five years. After the purchase of the property, his mother died. He would submit that the defendant and her husband-N.Krishna were staying at Mallepalli and then shifted to Warasiguda and from there Khatedhan and when her husband fell ill with heart problem, he was admitted in Andhra Mahila Sabha Hospital, where he died in the year, 2003. The dead body of her husband was brought by the plaintiff to his house at Warasiguda and after performing funeral and other ceremonies, the defendant shifted her house from Khatedhan to Warasiguda and staying in the plaintiff’s house. After some time, the defendant started picking up quarrels everyday blaming the plaintiff on irrational grounds and as such, the matter was brought to the notice of the elders on 27.10.2007 where the defendant was advised to take another house. The defendant instead of obliging the advise of elders asked the plaintiff to stay somewhere and that she would stay in the very same suit schedule property by paying rent of Rs.500/-. The plaintiff unable to bear the harassment of the defendant, shifted his residence to Achaiah Nagar, Hyderabad, for a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month in the first week of December, 2007. The defendant was quite irregular in payment of rent from the last three years and threatening him and as such he got issued a legal notice on 25.10.2014 to her and a reply notice was given by her denying the title and payment of rents to the plaintiff. The suit schedule property fetches a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, requested mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month till realisation of the decree. 7. In the written statement filed by the defendant while denying the material allegations, she stated that the suit schedule property was purchased by the elder brother of her husband who is also the elder brother of the plaintiff. Her husband was working in Dubai and he used to send amounts to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the property was purchased in the year, 1983. At that time, the plaintiff was minor and aged about eight to nine years and as such her husband’s brother acted as a guardian in the sale deed. Her husband was working in Dubai and he used to send amounts to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the property was purchased in the year, 1983. At that time, the plaintiff was minor and aged about eight to nine years and as such her husband’s brother acted as a guardian in the sale deed. As her husband was maintaining his younger brother i.e., plaintiff, he purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff under the guardianship of one N.Yadagiri-elder brother of plaintiff. When her husband returned back to India in the year 1988 stayed in the suit schedule property and got married in the year 1989 and blessed with three female children and their family was residing in the suit schedule property as absolute owner and possessors of the same. N.Krishna, husband of the defendant, was expired in the year, 2003. During his life time, he performed the marriage of plaintiff in the year, 1998 and also provided financial help to carry on business for his livelihood. After his death, the plaintiff shifted his family and started residing at Ramnagar and also doing his own business. He is having only one daughter. The original sale deed is in the custody of the defendant and that she also filed O.S.No.121 of 2015 for cancellation of the sale deed. She would submit that the plaintiff is trying to dispossess her and her husband by illegal means and made all the false allegations. She would submit that as she is the absolute owner of the property, the question of payment of rents does not arise. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice with false allegations and she gave reply notice in the year, 2004. She approached caste-association i.e., Jantanagarala Mahendra Sangam and the committee conducted a meeting in the month of October, 2014 wherein the plaintiff did not attend the meeting. But the elder brother of the plaintiff namely N.Yadagiri and other relatives attended and the committee passed a resolution in her favour and directed the plaintiff to execute release deed in favour of the defendant confirming her ownership rights over the suit schedule property. She filed a copy of the resolution and also original sale deed in O.S.No.121 of 2015. She also filed original letters written by her husband from Dubai, ration card and Aadhar card relating to her in the said suit. She filed a copy of the resolution and also original sale deed in O.S.No.121 of 2015. She also filed original letters written by her husband from Dubai, ration card and Aadhar card relating to her in the said suit. As both the matters are connected, requested the Court to dispose of the same by conducting a joint trial. She would also state that as the plaintiff filed the suit after a lapse of 36 years, it is not maintainable and the said property was purchased by her husband during her lifetime and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 are marked on his behalf. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and her husband was examined as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B3 on her behalf. 9. Plaintiff herein admitted that the defendant filed O.S.No.121 of 2015 for which he also filed his written statement. He deposed that his elder brother N.Yadagiri is a natural guardian in the sale deed and he was a minor at that time and his second brother N.Krishna was engaged in a private service at Dubai. The marriage of N.Krishna was performed in the year 1988 and his marriage was performed in the year, 1999. He further deposed that he has not received any notice from Sangam. It was suggested to him that in spite of service of notice, he refused the same and did not attend the Panchayat, but he denied it. It was also suggested to him that his Advocate received reply notice along with copy of resolution for which he stated that he do not know the same. It was suggested to him that his other brother N.Yadagiri in his written statement filed in O.S.No.121 of 2015 admitted that he paid sale consideration amount sent by N.Krishna to the vendor and as such he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, for which he denied the same. D.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that till the date of purchase of the house, her husband paid all the taxes to the concerned department and after his death she paid all the taxes including water and electricity. But she paid in the name of the plaintiff as the document is in the name of plaintiff. D.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that till the date of purchase of the house, her husband paid all the taxes to the concerned department and after his death she paid all the taxes including water and electricity. But she paid in the name of the plaintiff as the document is in the name of plaintiff. As N.Yadagiri was a Government Employee, the property was purchased in the name of plaintiff with the funds of her husband. Plaintiff issued legal notice in the year 2006 and again issued another notice in the year, 2014. From the year, 1983 to till date, she is the absolute owner and the exclusive owner of the property. She deposed that she approached caste-association elders in the year, 2014 for redressal and the resolution was passed in her favour. She filed O.S.No.121 of 2015 for cancellation of the sale deed. In her cross-examination, she deposed that they have taken shop at Khatedan, after the birth of second child when they were residing in the suit schedule property and that when they were at Khatedan, her husband had heart attack. When she was informed by her husband’s elder sister about the heart attack, she went to Andhra Mahila Sabha Hospital, but the authorities did not permit her to enter into the patient’s room and she returned back. She deposed that her husband came back to India after four years. During those four years, the suit schedule property was vacant. The defendant was also not staying in the said house and was residing at her relatives house at Mallepalli. She also deposed that the mother of her husband purchased the property from Khaja Bee and all the amenities in the suit schedule property stands in the her name. Ex.A10 contains the signature of plaintiff. Ex.A11 contains the signature of his mother and elder brother and it is not signed by the plaintiff. Ex.A12 contains the signature of her elder brother-in-law Naryana. She do not know about the bank balance of her husband in the year, 1980. She further deposed that she approached the caste association and they called the plaintiff for three times, but she do not know whether notices were issued to him or not. Ex.A12 contains the signature of her elder brother-in-law Naryana. She do not know about the bank balance of her husband in the year, 1980. She further deposed that she approached the caste association and they called the plaintiff for three times, but she do not know whether notices were issued to him or not. D.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that he has not taken any permission to act as a natural guardian to the plaintiff and he has not acted as a guardian even at the time of purchasing the suit schedule property. He has not signed as guardian in the registered sale deed and also not paid the amount on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 has not written any document or any letter to him to act as a natural guardian of the plaintiff. 10. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record decreed the suit and also granted Rs.10,000/- per month towards mesne profits as it was located in the prime area. It seems during the pendency of the proceedings, Special Leave Petition No.3143 of 2020 was preferred by the defendant against the orders dated 02.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.C.C.A.No.362 of 2019 and interim stay was granted therein including E.P.No.208 of 2019. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent also filed certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.121 of 2015 dated 21.08.2019. The said suit was filed by the defendant herein along with others. In the said suit, the defendant herein was examined as P.W.1 and the husband of D.W.1 was examined as P.W.2 and the plaintiff herein is examined as D.W.1 and his brother N.Yadagiri was examined as D.W.2. Exs.A1 to A13 was also marked on behalf of the plaintiffs therein. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that as the suit filed by her for cancellation of the document was dismissed on merits after contest, the appeal filed by the defendant is devoid of merit and is to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant would argue that during the caste elders meeting her brother-in-law N.Yadagiri clearly stated that he paid sale consideration and the said amount was sent by N.Krishna. He acted as a guardian for the plaintiff at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant would argue that during the caste elders meeting her brother-in-law N.Yadagiri clearly stated that he paid sale consideration and the said amount was sent by N.Krishna. He acted as a guardian for the plaintiff at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. 13. Perusal of the registered sale deed shows that N.Yadagiri acted as a guardian and it was executed in favour of the plaintiff, but it was not stated anywhere in the document that the amount was sent by his elder brother-N.Krishna and it is a benami transaction. In the panchayat, considering the admission of N.Yadagiri and also the evidence of other relatives, the elders passed a resolution that the plaintiff has no right in the property and he is directed to execute release deed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff would contend that he has not received any notice from the Sangham and as such he could not attend the meeting and the alleged resolution was passed at the instance of the defendant for monetary gain. But the elder of the panchayat was not examined by D.W.1 and also admitted in her cross-examination that she do not know whether the notices sent to the plaintiff was received or not. But in the resolution it was observed that he refused to receive the notices and did not attend the meeting. Elder of the Committee is not examined. Admittedly, the resolution was passed in his absence and mere filing of the document under Ex.B1 is not sufficient to substantiate the version of the defendant. The legal notice given by the plaintiff on 25.10.2014 under Ex.A3 and a reply notice issued by the defendant was filed under Ex.A4. The defendant herein would state that the plaintiff issued legal notice in the year 2006 and kept quiet till 2014 and issued another notice, but the notice issued in the year 2006 is not filed before the Court. 14. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession after the demise of his elder brother N.Krishna. As per the evidence on record, N.Krishna worked in Dubai and returned to India in the year 1988 and he married the defendant in the year 1989 and that the defendant would submit that they were residing in the suit schedule property from then onwards and that her husband expired in the year 2003. As per the evidence on record, N.Krishna worked in Dubai and returned to India in the year 1988 and he married the defendant in the year 1989 and that the defendant would submit that they were residing in the suit schedule property from then onwards and that her husband expired in the year 2003. But in the cross-examination it was elicited that immediately after the marriage she resided at Mallepally and later at Khatedan when her husband had an heart attack. Therefore, her contention that she was residing in the suit schedule property from the date of purchase cannot be accepted. Moreover, if at all the amount was sent by N.Krishna from Dubai for purchase of the property, it should have been mentioned in the sale deed as source of income. The defendant would assert that since Yadagiri is a Government servant, the property was purchased in the name of minor brother-plaintiff. Even if the version of the defendant is believed, why they kept quiet from 1985 to 2003 without insisting for release deed or cancellation of the document during the life time of N.Krishna is not explained. The suit O.S.No.121 of 2015 was filed in the year 2015 for cancellation of the document and N.Krishna was also examined as P.W.2 and that the said suit was dismissed on contest. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon a case law reported in MANGATHAI AMMAL (DIED) THROUGH L.Rs. V/s. RAJESWARI, MANU/SC/0772/2019 in which it was held that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be sold. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of the benami transaction or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an interference of that fact. 16. In the case on hand, the defendant failed to establish the fact that the suit schedule property was purchased with the funds of her husband. Though the defendant relied upon Exs.B1 to B3, the trial Court observed that they could not establish that the money was sent by her husband for the purchase of the suit schedule property. 16. In the case on hand, the defendant failed to establish the fact that the suit schedule property was purchased with the funds of her husband. Though the defendant relied upon Exs.B1 to B3, the trial Court observed that they could not establish that the money was sent by her husband for the purchase of the suit schedule property. Moreover, as the defendant herself filed suit for cancellation of document and it was dismissed and a register sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff and all the taxes were paid in his name from the date of purchase till today contention of defendant that suit filed without asking for declaration of title is not maintainable. The registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff, only after the death of her husband, he permitted the defendant to reside in the said house as she agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, but the defendant could not pay the rent from the past three years, and thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession after issuing legal notice. 17. The trial Court also observed that as the house is located in a prima area, it fetches the rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly granted mesne profits. As the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence in respect of grant of mesne profits, he is at a liberty to file a separate suit to that effect. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent of granting relief of mesne profits is without any evidence and basis and is accordingly set aside to that extent. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. In so far as granting of mesne profits is concerned, the same is set aside and the plaintiff is at liberty to work out his remedies by filing a separate suit and by adducing independent evidence. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.