JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 passed by the learned VII – Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. Plaintiffs in the Suit are the sons and daughter of one Late Sayeedunnisa. They filed Suit in O.S.No.33 of 2008 for partition against the defendants. The defendants No.1 to 3 are the son and daughters of one Late Ahmed Shariff. The defendants No.4 to 6 are the sons and daughter of one Waheda Begum D/o. Ahmed Shariff. The defendants No.9 to 13 are the children of Late Azizullah Shariff S/o. Late Jahangir Shariff. The defendants No.14 to 17 are the children of Late Rahmathullah Shariff S/o. Jahangir Shariff and defendants No.18 to 23 are the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and are impleaded as per the Orders in I.A.No.322 of 2010 dated 23.12.2010. 3. Plaintiffs in the Suit mainly contended that they are the legal heirs of Sayeedunnisa Begum and she died in the year 1999 and are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property. They further stated that the mother of Sayeedunnisa Begum i.e, Hussaini Begum also died in the year 1987 and Sayeedunnisa Begum is entitled for share of her mother and thus plaintiffs are entitled for the said shares of Sayeedunnisa. 4. Cross Obj.SR.No.7003 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiffs against the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.33 of 2018, in which they contended that the trial Court wrongly held that land in Sy.Nos.398, 399, 400, 401, 413 and 414 are recorded in the names of third parties who are no way concerned with the family of the plaintiffs. They further contended that defendants have not pleaded in their written statement in respect of above said survey numbers did not belong to Mohd.Shareef. 5. Defendants in the suit contended that Mohd.Shareef and Hussaini Begum were died issueless. The said Sayeedunnisa is not their daughter. In fact, she is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef and she is not entitled for any partition and thus plaintiffs are also not entitled for any share in the properties, but the trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence decreed the Suit in favour of plaintiffs and held that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of half share and 1/8th share of the suit schedule property and accordingly passed a preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the defendant No.7 in the suit filed preferred the present appeal. 6. The defendant No.7/appellant mainly contended that plaintiffs are not the family members of Mohd. Shareef and the suit schedule properties are his Matruka properties. He also stated that Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef, who is one of the brothers of Mohd. Shareef and he filed Exs.B1, B2 & B3 to prove the said fact, but the trial Court ignored the crucial evidence. He also stated that Mohd. Shareef and Hussaini Begum died issueless. The Suit for partition was filed in the year 2008, Mohd. Shareef died in the year 1958, Hussaini Begum died in the year 1987 and the Sayeedunnisa Begum died in the year 1992. He also stated that there was no mutation of entries and the Suit itself was filed nearly after 50 years and the cause of action arise when the death of Mohd. Shareef known to the plaintiffs, but they kept quiet for five decades after the death of Mohd. Shareef, as he died issueless the suit schedule property was devolved on the two brothers of Mohd.Shareef i.e, Jahangir Shareef and Ahmed Shareef. The Sayeedunnisa Begum is none other than the daughter of Ahmed Shareef, who is niece of Mohd. Shareef. The trial Court wrongly considered Exs.A15, A16 & A17, in which the Mohd. Shareef was shown as the father of Sayeedunnisa Begum, but her mother’s name was not revealed in the said documents. The age and parentage of Mohd. Shareef was also not mentioned in the said documents and no competent witness to spoke about the documents was examined. If at all, the Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Mohd.Shareef, she would have become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the question of brothers of Mohd. Shareef getting property by succession does not arise. 7. He further stated that entries in the School records are not to be treated as conclusive proof of the parentage or age or for any other particulars. There can be any number of persons by name Mohd. Shareef and relied upon the citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also stated that even as per the Pahanies, plaintiffs are not shown as possessors or Pattadars of the suit land and except Exs.A15 to A17, there are no other documents to support their case. There can be any number of persons by name Mohd. Shareef and relied upon the citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also stated that even as per the Pahanies, plaintiffs are not shown as possessors or Pattadars of the suit land and except Exs.A15 to A17, there are no other documents to support their case. There is no evidence of possession in favour of the plaintiffs ever since 1958 to till 1992. The Court fee paid them is grossly insufficient as plaintiffs are never in joint possession of the suit schedule properties to avail the benefit under Section 34(2) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. The Suit should have been dismissed on the ground of estoppel and the suit claim was not made for a period of five decades. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court. 8. Plaintiffs stated that Late Mohammed Shareef was the Pattadar and absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural lands to an extent of Acs.104 – 23 gts as tabled below: S.No Sy.No. Extent in Acs – gts 1. 5 5.12 2. 36 8.08 3. 332 6.14 4. 398 15.33 5. 399 13.31 6. 400 12.08 7. 401 8.21 8. 413 4.06 9. 415 7.04 10. 419 6.04 11. 427 1.29 12. 429 6.15 13. 431 1.26 14. 432 1018 15. 433 0.16 16. 434 2.07 17. 446 6.11 TOTAL Acs.104 – 23 gts 9. The Mohd.Shareef died in the year 1958 leaving behind his widow Hussaini Begum and daughter Sayeedunnisa Begum and two younger brothers Ahmed Shareef and Jhangir Shareef to succeed his estate as per Muslim Law of inheritance. The widow and daughter are entitled to inherit 1/8th and half share respectively and two younger brothers are entitled to inherit 7/32nd share each in the suit schedule property. Hussaini Begum died intestate in 1987 leaving behind her daughter to succeed her undivided 1/8th share and Sayeedunisa Begum inherited her mother’s undivided share, but she died intestate in 1992 leaving behind plaintiffs who are legal heirs to succeed her undivided share of 18/32nd share in the suit lands (her mother’s share and her share) and thus plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 9/16th share. 10. The younger brother of Mohd.Shareef namely Ahmed Shareef died intestate in 1959 leaving behind his son and five daughters. Defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Ahmed Shareef. 10. The younger brother of Mohd.Shareef namely Ahmed Shareef died intestate in 1959 leaving behind his son and five daughters. Defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Ahmed Shareef. The defendant No.4 is the son of Afsar Begum D/o. Ahmed Shareef. Defendants No. 5 & 6 are the husband and daughter of Waheda Begum D/o. Ahmed Shareef. The defendant No.7 is the son of Zaheda Begum D/o. Ahmed Shareef. The widow of Ahmed Shareef predeceased the husband and thus defendants No.1 to 7 are entitled for 7/32nd share. 11. The second younger brother of Mohd.Shreef namely Jahangir Shareef died intestate in 1961 leaving behind his three sons to succeed his undivided 7/32nd share in the suit property. The defendant No.8 is the son of Jahangir Shareef. The defendant No.7 is the son of Yousuf Shareef S/o. Jahangir Shareef. Defendants No.9 to 13 are the widow, sons and daughters of Azizullah Shareef S/o. Jahangir shareef. The defendants No.14 to 17 are the sons and daughter of Rahmatullah Shareef S/o. Jahangir Shareef. The widow of late Jahangir Shareef predeceased the husband, as such defendants No.7 to 17 are entitled to inherit 7/32nd undivided share of Jahangir Shareef. The defendant No.7 is entitled to inherit share from his mother’s share and also from his father’s share. 12. Plaintiffs stated that all the plaintiffs and defendants are jointly in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.7 is leasing out the suit lands on behalf of the parties and he was paying annual rent of Rs.10,000/- to plaintiffs towards their share till 2005. From 2006 onwards he stopped such payment. When they demanded for payment of annual rents, he postponed the same on one or other pretext. The defendant No.7 in collusion with other defendants trying to alienate the suit schedule property without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and filed false criminal case against plaintiff No.1, as such plaintiffs requested defendants for partition of the properties, but they refused to do so and thus plaintiffs filed Suit for partition. Plaintiffs stated that cause of action arose when the defendant No.7 stopped payment of annual rents in the year 2006 and thus they filed Suit on 19.01.2011 and it is well within the time. 13. Plaintiffs stated that cause of action arose when the defendant No.7 stopped payment of annual rents in the year 2006 and thus they filed Suit on 19.01.2011 and it is well within the time. 13. In the Written Statement filed by defendants No.1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12, they contended that Suit is not maintainable either on facts or on law. Plaintiffs are liable to pay Court fee of Rs.1,07,777/- under Section 34(1) of Court fees and Suits valuation Act, but paid Rs.200/- under Section 34(2) of the Act and thus it is liable to be dismissed. They stated that they did not know whether the plaintiff No.1 is the G.P.A of plaintiffs No.2 & 3. They admitted that Mohd.Shareef died leaving behind his wife Hussaini Begum and elder brothers Ahmed Shareef and Jhangir Shareef to succeed his estate as per the Muslim Law, but they denied that he died leaving behind his daughter Sayeedunnisa Begum and she is not their daughter. Mohd.Shareef and Hussaini Begum died issueless. 14. They further stated that neither Sayeedunnisa Begum nor plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the suit schedule property, as the children of two other brothers of Mohd.Shareef are entitled to succeed to the suit property. The additional Collector Mahabub Nagar has already decided vide his Judgment case No.A1/19/63 (decision No.193) dated 24.06.1964 stating that Mohd.Shareef died issueless and that the children of Jhangir Shareef and Ahmed Shareef shall inherit the property of Mohd.Shareef. Defendants are the children of Jhangir Shareef and Ahmed Shareef, they also filed Certified Copy of the registered Gift deed dated 13.02.1962 vide document No.380 of 1962, in which Hussaini Begum admitted that she is issueless and her husband died 1 ½ year back. They also filed Certified Copy of the registered sale deed vide document No.1438 of 1976, in which Sayeedunnisa Begum admitted that she is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef, as such Sayeedunnisa Begum is not entitled for any share of Mohd.Shareef. The lands left by Mohd.Shareef as his Matruka goes to the children of his brothers i.e, Ahmed Shareef and Jhangir Shareef as per law, as such plaintiffs have no locus standi to file Suit. There is no concept of adoption in the Mohammadan Law. Plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove that Sayeedunnisa Begum was born to Mohd.Shareef and his wife Hussaini Begum. There is no concept of adoption in the Mohammadan Law. Plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove that Sayeedunnisa Begum was born to Mohd.Shareef and his wife Hussaini Begum. They filed Suit only to extract money from defendant No.7 in view of abnormal raise in prices of lands and to compel him to withdraw the criminal cases in Cr.No.303 of 2007 and also the case filed by him before the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of illegal documents obtained by plaintiff No.1. Plaintiffs failed to file any document to prove the ownership of their mother or her title or possession over the suit schedule lands. They filed Xerox copies of the Pahanies, but they are not concerned with the lands in question. Defendants are the absolute owners of the lands in Sy.Nos.412, 413, 415, 427 & 438 which are owned by Mohd.Shareef and Mohd.Yousuf Shareef. The lands in Sy.Nos.431, 432, 433, 434 & 436 situated at Chowlapally Village are owned and possessed by defendant No.7 and he also obtained Patta Passbooks and title deeds of the suit lands. 15. They further stated that additional documents were received in I.A.No.725 of 2008 dated 21.03.2012 and the said certificates were issued by the educational authorities and are given only basing on the information given by the students, as such they cannot be taken into account. Plaintiffs did not file the S.S.C and marriage certificate of Sayeedunnisa Begum. As the revenue Court decided the matter in the year 1961 that Mohd.Shareef died issueless, the certificates filed by plaintiffs are pertaining to the year 1964, 1962 & 1976. So also, the Order of the Collector under Ex.B1 is passed in 1964 and it was not challenged by the plaintiffs and it attained finality. In Ex.B3 Sayeedunnisa Begum admitted that she is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef and in the year 1962 under Ex.B2 Hussaini begum admitted that she is issueless, and thus the educational certificates cannot be considered. It was also denied that defendant No.7 paying annual rents to the plaintiffs till 2005 and stopped payment from the year 2006. Defendants also stated that plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that they are in joint possession, but filed suit for partition and separate possession, they have not paid the sufficient Court fee and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit with costs. 16. Defendants also stated that plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that they are in joint possession, but filed suit for partition and separate possession, they have not paid the sufficient Court fee and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit with costs. 16. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A19 on behalf of the plaintiffs. D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the defendants and marked Exs.B1 to B4 on their behalf. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs. 17. The plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint. Exs.A2 to A13 are the Pahanies for the years 1955-58, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1965-66, 1970-71, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96 and 2003-04. It was suggested that in his evidence he has not mentioned about Sy.Nos.436, 414 and 438 though they were mentioned in the plaint. He further stated that he did not know whether Mohd.Shareef paid land revenue during his life time or not. He also admitted in his Cross-examination that Sayeedunnisa Begum never approached revenue officials to mutate her name after the death of Mohd.Shareef or his wife. Even P.W.1 has not approached revenue authorities to mutate his name after the death of his mother. It was suggested that the name of Yousef Shareef, who is the father of defendant No.7 was mutated in the revenue records as owner and possessor of the suit lands, but he denied the same. 18. Mohamoodi Begum was examined as P.W.2 and she stated that plaintiff No.3 is her daughter-in-law. She knows Hussaini Begum and she married Mohd.Shareef of Chowlapally village. Her elder sister was given in marriage to one Syed Osman of Chowlapally village, Shadnagar Taluq where her elder sister was also given in marriage to the same village. Hussaini Begum was visiting Thatikonda village for functions and other ceremonies during her life time. She was blessed with daughter namely Sayeedunnisa and after the death of her husband Sayeedunnisa got employment as a Government Teacher in Adilabad District, as such Hussaini Begum also residing with her daughter Sayeedunnisa at Adilabad till her death. She stated that plaintiff No.3 is the daughter and plaintiff No.1 and 2 are the sons of Sayeedunnisa, the marriage of plaintiff No.3 was performed with her younger son. She stated that plaintiff No.3 is the daughter and plaintiff No.1 and 2 are the sons of Sayeedunnisa, the marriage of plaintiff No.3 was performed with her younger son. She also stated the Hussaini Begum died about 20 years back at Adilabad and Sayeedunnisa died about 18 years back at Hyderabad. In the Cross-examination she stated that Hussaini Begum 10 years elder to her and she came to the Court at the instance of plaintiffs. 19. P.W.3 is the native of Tadikonda village and his relatives are residing at Choundur Village. He stated that Mohd. Shareef was the pattadar, absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land of more than 100 acres in various survey numbers situated at Chowlapally Village of Mahaboob Nagar District. He died about 50 years back leaving behind his wife, daughter and two brothers to succeed to his estate. He further stated that defendant No.7 is leasing out the property on behalf of the plaintiffs and paying some amount annually and when he stopped payment, plaintiffs filed the Suit. In the Cross-examination he stated that he was aged about 4 years as on the death of Mohd.Shareef. 20. P.W.4 is the friend of father of the plaintiffs i.e, Syed Abdul Raheem. He stated that Sayeedunnisa Begum is the only daughter of his father-in-law of Mohd.Shareef, who is practicing as Advocate. It was suggested to him that Syed Abdul Raheem had two wives and he is having two children through his first wife and three children through second wife and he died in the year 1986. He visited Chowlapalli Village when he was aged about 12 years. 21. The defendant No.7 was examined as D.W.1. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement. In the Cross-examination he stated that he worked for about 26 years in Zeddha from 1981 to 2006. He also stated that plaintiff used to visit his house till filing of the Suit. Hussaini Begum was having two houses in Resali Abdulla, Hyderabad, but he cannot give the door numbers. He further stated that Hussaini Begum and Sayeedunnisa was staying in one of the house till it was sold about 15 years back. He also stated that plaintiff used to visit his house till filing of the Suit. Hussaini Begum was having two houses in Resali Abdulla, Hyderabad, but he cannot give the door numbers. He further stated that Hussaini Begum and Sayeedunnisa was staying in one of the house till it was sold about 15 years back. He admitted that Sayeedunnisa Begum is related to him as Jr.Paternal aunt, she worked as Teacher at Adilabad, her mother was staying with her in Adilabad, but he did not know whether Hussaini Begum or Sayeedunnisa Begum has any properties in Hyderabad or not. It was suggested to him that Exs.B.2 & B3 are fabricated and forged documents created by his father, but he denied it and stated that Ex.B3 was executed in his favour and his father purchased the said property. It was also suggested that Ex.B1 was passed without notice and knowledge of plaintiffs. He admitted that Mohd.Shareef was a leading Advocate in Mahabubnagar. He further stated that he has not filed Pattadar Passbook and title deeds before the Court and he sold only an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.432. He also stated that he filed complaint against plaintiff No.1 in Cr.No.303 of 2007 before Shadnagar Police Station and the same was marked under Ex.A19. He further admitted that the plaintiff No.1 is a Government employee and he was given job on compassionate grounds after the death of his mother Sayeedunnisa Begum. It was suggested to him that the name of plaintiff No.1 was mutated in revenue records in respect of lands in Sy.No.412, 413, 415 and 427 and he preferred an appeal against the said mutation before Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar and the mutation Order was set aside, as such plaintiff No.1 preferred an appeal before Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in which Orders of Revenue Divisional Officer were set aside, but he denied the same. He filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.22425 of 2012, but he has not stated about the said proceedings in his affidavit. He further stated that he could not say whether the marriage of Sayeedunnisa Begum was performed in the year 1960 or 1961. 22. The neighbor of Ahmed Shareef and Jhangir Shareef was examined as D.W.2 and he stated that Mohd.Shareef died issueless. Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef. He further stated that he could not say whether the marriage of Sayeedunnisa Begum was performed in the year 1960 or 1961. 22. The neighbor of Ahmed Shareef and Jhangir Shareef was examined as D.W.2 and he stated that Mohd.Shareef died issueless. Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef. He worked as Inspector of Police, but he was suspended from service for the second time. He also stated that Mohd.Shareef is the friend of his father, but he could not identify the Photograph of Mohd.Shareef and he could not identify his wife or Sayeedunnisa Begum. 23. One Kishan Rao who is Ex-Malipatel, Police Patel and Village Assistant was examined as D.W.3. He stated that Mohd.Shareef and his wife died issueless and the said fact is known to residents of Chowlapally and Kamsanpally villages. He worked as Malipatel and Police patel from 1961 to 1983 and also as V.A.O of Kamsanpally village till his retirement in the year 2003. He stated that re-survey was conducted for the lands in the year 1983. It was suggested that he has not implemented the re-survey in village records in the year 1986, as such he was suspended from job, but he denied the same. 24. The defendant No.8 was examined as D.W.4 who is the son of Jahangir Shareef. He stated that Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef who is paternal uncle and he admitted that plaintiffs are children of Sayeedunnisa Begum. He stated that Mohd.Shareef and his wife died issueless. In the Cross-examination he stated that he worked in Fisheries Department and retired from service in the year 1996. 25. The wife of defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.5. She stated that Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef and she is the real sister of her husband and plaintiffs are the children of Sayeedunnisa Begum. She stated that Mohd.Shareef and his wife Hussaini Begum died issueless. She also stated that her husband died in the month of May, 2010. It was suggested to her that son of Sayeedunnisa Begum helped her daughter to perform love marriage, as such she bore grudge on her, but she denied the same. 26. The main contention of the defendants is that Sayeedunnisa Begum is not the daughter of Mohd.Shareef and Hussaini Begum as they died issueless and thus plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit properties. 26. The main contention of the defendants is that Sayeedunnisa Begum is not the daughter of Mohd.Shareef and Hussaini Begum as they died issueless and thus plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit properties. They relied upon the Order of the Additional Collector in case No.A1/19/63 (decision No.193 dated 24.06.1964). Aggrieved by the Order of the Tahsildar, a revision was preferred by Abdulla Shareef against Hussaini Begum and he contended Mohd. Shareef/his uncle died issueless. He also stated that Mohd. Shareef was the Pattedar of the lands situated at Kamsanpally and Chowlapally villages and he had two brothers namely Ahmed Shareef and Jahangir Shareef, they also died leaving behind their children. He contended that the lands in Kamsanpally village were mutated in favour of Hussaini Begum without their knowledge, but the lands in Chowlapally village are not mutated till then and thus he requested the authority to set aside the Order of the Tahsildar to grant succession in the name of legal heirs according to Muslim Law. It was observed that as per Faisal Patti of Kamsanpally Village for the year 1960-61, it is evident that on the basis of the succession sanctioned by the Tahsildar “Fonthi Karmi” and “Izafumal” was effected for the lands of Mohd.Shareef. He also observed that the Deputy Tahsildar conducted spot enquiry. As per the said enquiry, the grand-father of the revision petitioner/Mohd.Shareef died leaving behind his three sons namely Ahmed Shareef, Jahangir Shareef and Mohd.Shareef. The Mohd.Shareef died issueless leaving behind his widow Hussaini Begum. The Hussaini Begum is entitled to 1/4th share in the property along with the legal heirs of other brothers. Though he published a notification in the Siasat paper on 01.05.1963, respondents therein failed to present in the Court and thus succession granted in favour of the respondents regarding Kamsanpally village was set aside and Tahsildar requested to sanction succession in the names of legal heirs for the landed property of the deceased Mohd. Shareef according to the Muslim Law as per Sections 5 and 6 of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli and accordingly appeal was allowed. 27. Ex.B4 is the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in case No.B/6741/2005 dated 29.01.2008 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar basing on the application of Ahmed Mujtaba Shareef. Shareef according to the Muslim Law as per Sections 5 and 6 of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli and accordingly appeal was allowed. 27. Ex.B4 is the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in case No.B/6741/2005 dated 29.01.2008 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar basing on the application of Ahmed Mujtaba Shareef. He stated that his father Yousuf Shareef and his grand-father Mohd.Shareef expired issueless and they are the pattadars over the lands in Sy.Nos. 438, 412, 413, 415 and 427 situated within the limits of Chowlapally Village and some un-concerned persons are trying to get mutated their names and requested to rectify the earlier entries accordingly. On verification of revenue records i.e., 1989-90 ROR of Chowlapally Village, it was found that the Mohd.Shareef was issueless for the lands in the said Survey numbers and the changes are also made in file numbers given in Ex.B4. A copy of the complaint given by the grand-sons of Ahmed Shareef and Jhangir Shareef is also filed. The Certified Copy of the Gift deed vide document No.380 of 1962 executed by Hussaini Begum is filed under Ex.B2, in which it was stated that Hussaini Begum was not having any children and her husband died about 1½ year back without children. Sayeedunnisa Begum D/o. Ahmed Shareef who is unmarried is her niece, as she looked after her from the childhood, to provide arrangement for her marriage she gifted the house property, but in the document it was stated that the house to an extent of 70 Sq.yards sold for Rs.1,500/-and possession was also handed over. Ex.B3 is the sale deed executed by Sayeedunnisa Begum in which her father name was shown as Ahmed Shareef and her husband name was shown as Syed Abdul Raheem. 28. Plaintiffs filed graduation Certificate of Sayeedaunnia under Ex.A15, B.Ed Certificate under Ex.A16, Intermediate Certificate under Ex.A17 and Service Register under Ex.A18. In all the certificates the name of her father was shown as Mohd. Shareef. They also relied upon the Service Register in which her father’s name was shown as Mohd.Shareef and her husband’s name was shown as Syed Abdul Raheem. It was shown that he is having three children. In all the certificates the name of her father was shown as Mohd. Shareef. They also relied upon the Service Register in which her father’s name was shown as Mohd.Shareef and her husband’s name was shown as Syed Abdul Raheem. It was shown that he is having three children. The trial Court considering the education certificates of the Sayeedunnisa Bugum to prove her paternity, observed that the said documents are given by the Osmania University and moreover, Ex.A17 is the oldest document pertaining to the year 1957 and other documents were also given in the year 1959 to 1971 and there is no reason for them to wrongly mention the name of her father as Mohd. Shareef. So also, it relied upon the Service Register in which it was held that she is the daughter of Mohd. Shareef and is entitled for share in the suit schedule property. As a result, plaintiffs are also having right in the said property. Regarding the document of the defendants, it was observed that the Gift deed and sale deeds are void, but not original and translations were fabricated by an authorized person and regarding the Order of the Additional Collector, it was remanded to the Tahsildar with a direction to issue succession certificate, as such they cannot be relied upon. 29. Now, it is for the Court to decide whether Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Mohd. Shareef and Hussaini Begum or whether she is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef. 30. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants supported the version of the defendants stating that Sayeedunnisa Begum is not the daughter of Mohd.Shareef. In the order of the Additional Collector dated 24.06.1964, it was clearly mentioned that Mohd.Shareef died issueless leaving his widow Hussaini Begum and thus she is entitled for 1/4th share in the property along with the children of the brothers of Mohd.Shareef. She is a party to the said proceedings and notification was also issued on 01.05.1963, but she did not turn up. The trial Court observed that it is an exparte Order, as such it cannot be relied upon. Even after issuance of notification, Hussaini Begum did not turn up before the concerned authorities, as such the Order of the Tahsildar was set aside. The trial Court observed that it is an exparte Order, as such it cannot be relied upon. Even after issuance of notification, Hussaini Begum did not turn up before the concerned authorities, as such the Order of the Tahsildar was set aside. As per the said Order, the name of Hussaini Begum was mutated regarding the lands situated at Kamsanpally village and thus the Tahsildar was directed to dispose of the matter as per Section 5 & 6 of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in land Regulation, 1358 Fasli. It seems accordingly the names of other legal heirs were mutated, as such in proceedings dated 29.01.2008 under Ex.B4 the name of Mohd.Shareef was shown as issueless for the lands in Sy.Nos.438, 412, 413, 415 and 427. Even Hussaini Begum in her Gift deed clearly stated that Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmad Shareef, but she took care of her from childhood and intended to perform her marriage. No doubt, D.W.1 in her evidence admitted that Hussaini Begum was residing with Sayeedunnisa Begum at Adilabad till her death. As she brought up her, may be she was residing with Sayeedunnisa at the fag end of her life. She clearly stated that she adopted Sayeedunnisa, but defendants contended that there is no concept of adoption in Muslim Law. If at all Sayeedunnisa is their daughter, there is no reason for Hussaini Begum to depose falsely in her Gift deed. Even in the sale deed executed by Sayeedunnisa Begum her father’s name was shown as Ahmed Shareef. Therefore, this Court finds that Sayeedunnisa Begum is not the daughter of Mohd.Shareef and Hussaini Begum, as Mohd.Shareef died issueless. The Hussaini Begum in her Gift deed stated that they brought up Sayeedunnisa from her childhood, as such her father name was mentioned as Mohd.Shareef in her educational records, but in the Service Register even after her marriage, her father’s name was mentioned merely to show Mohd.Shareef as father of Sayeedunnisa Begum. It cannot be treated that she is the natural daughter of Mohd.Shareef and thus she is not entitled for any share in the property of Mohd.Shareef. 31. Defendants mainly contended that Mohd. Shareef died long back. Plaintiffs filed the Suit 50 years after his death. It cannot be treated that she is the natural daughter of Mohd.Shareef and thus she is not entitled for any share in the property of Mohd.Shareef. 31. Defendants mainly contended that Mohd. Shareef died long back. Plaintiffs filed the Suit 50 years after his death. The name of Sayeedunnisa was not mutated in the revenue records either after the death of Mohd.Shareef or after the death of Hussaini Begum and plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs simply filed Xerox copy of Pahanies, but not any title deeds to show that Sayeedunnisa Begum was the Pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. They also contended that after the death of Mohd.Shareef and his wife the property was mutated in the names of his brothers and brother’s children and they are in possession of the suit schedule property, but the plaintiffs taking advantage of the name of Mohd.Shareef as father in the educational records filed the Suit in the year 2008 to gain wrongfully. They also contended that they are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property, as such the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not proper and it is to be paid under Section 34(1) of the Court fees and Suits valuation Act, but not under Section 34(2) of the said Act. Plaintiffs themselves stated that Mohd.Shareef died in the year 1958, Hussaini Begum died in the year 1987 and Sayeedunnisa Begum died in the year 1999, but they kept quiet till 2008. They simply stated that defendant No.7 leased out the properties and paying Rs.10,000/- per annum to the plaintiffs till 2005 and stopped payment till 2006, as such they claim for partition. When they refused, they filed Suit for partition. Whereas defendants contended that Suit was filed as a counter blast to the Criminal case filed by the defendant No.7. Defendant No.7 also admitted that except Sy.Nos.412, 413, 415, 427 and 438, he did not know about other survey numbers and he did not claim any property in other survey numbers. Though he is having Pattadar Passbook and title deeds, he has not filed before the Court and he sold the land to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.432. Defendant No.7 also admitted that except Sy.Nos.412, 413, 415, 427 and 438, he did not know about other survey numbers and he did not claim any property in other survey numbers. Though he is having Pattadar Passbook and title deeds, he has not filed before the Court and he sold the land to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.432. When first plaintiff mutated the name in the revenue records, defendant No.7 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and mutation was set aside, then the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabub Nagar in which Orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer was set aside. 32. There is no dispute regarding the fact that plaintiffs are the children of Sayeedunnisa Begum and plaintiff No.1 got job on compassionate grounds on the death of his mother, but as the Sayeedunnisa Begum is not the daughter of Mohd.Shareef she is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property and thus plaintiffs have no right or interest or title in the said property and they are not entitled for any share in the properties of Mohd.Shareef. 33. In the result, the appeal suit is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 passed by the learned VII-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. Cross Obj.SR.No.7003 of 2013 is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.