ORDER : 1. This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) assailing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1821 of 2007, dated 30.03.2016, passed by the Additional Judge - cum - VI Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit. Averments of the plaint: 3.1 Appellant-plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of house bearing No. 8-3-167/A/1 consisting of ground floor plus, two upper floors at Vikasapuri, S.R.Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Appellant-plaintiff was allotted open plot No.1, admeasuring 300 sq.yds. i.e., 250.80 sq.mts, being the member of M/s. B.H.E.L. (R and D) Employees Cooperative Housing Society (i.e., defendant No.4) under registered sale deed bearing document No.2026/1978 for valuable sale consideration. Initially, the appellant - plaintiff constructed ground floor after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. Subsequently, he constructed two upper floors after obtaining permission vide permit No.27/52, dated 08.11.2002 from Circle No.5, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 3.2 At the time of purchase of the plot, there was left over open space of size 21 x 16 sq.ft., i.e., admeasuring 37.33 sq.yds., towards south-east corner of the plot besides electrical substation (suit schedule property). The open space became nuisance for the appellant-plaintiff and his family members being the immediate neighbours and the locality people used to dump all waste material and debris and it was used as a place of dumper bin. The appellant-plaintiff and his family members were badly effected and he requested the committee members of defendant No.4 - society for taking appropriate measures to safeguard the plaintiff's right. The president of defendant No.4 - society directed the appellant- plaintiff to take appropriate measures and left the issue to his convenience. Municipal authorities also expressed their inconvenience and directed the appellant-plaintiff to take appropriate measures. Appellant-plaintiff engaged private security personnel in removing the said nuisance during the year 1990 and constructed a compound wall and a servant room in the leftover space. Since 1990 the appellant-plaintiff and his family members are in peaceful, absolute and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Neither the defendant No.4 - society nor the Municipal authorities and Revenue authorities have set up any claim whatsoever over the same. Appellant-plaintiff has perfected his title by prescription, being in continuous, uninterrupted possession for all these years. 3.3. Since 1990 the appellant-plaintiff and his family members are in peaceful, absolute and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Neither the defendant No.4 - society nor the Municipal authorities and Revenue authorities have set up any claim whatsoever over the same. Appellant-plaintiff has perfected his title by prescription, being in continuous, uninterrupted possession for all these years. 3.3. Defendant No.1 - society, which is formed subsequently, represented by its president and secretary (i.e., defendant No.2 and 3), without having right over the schedule property, started causing nuisance by way of obstructing the repair works taken up by the appellant - plaintiff. The defendants have no right, interest or title over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 constructed a mulgi for cooperative store towards the southern side of the suit schedule property in the year 1978. But left the open space as it belongs to them. Defendant No.1 has also constructed two mulgies to the south of the old mulgi constructed by defendant No.4. Defendant No.1 or defendant No.4 - societies have no right or title over the suit schedule property. On 05.07.2007 the defendants tried to remove the structures of the suit schedule property by engaging anti-social elements. On 07.07.2007, at about 08:30 a.m., to 09.00 a.m., defendants came with a mob of 20 to 25 persons, tried to dismantle the existing structure of the suit schedule property. Appellant - plaintiff has reported the matter to the police, due to their timely intervention the defendants could not succeed. Police has advised the appellant-plaintiff to approach the Court for appropriate reliefs and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for. 4. Appellant-plaintiff has originally filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3. 5.1 Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement which is adopted by defendant No.2 and 3. 5.2 It is stated in the written statement that it is the appellant- plaintiff who dumped the waste construction material in the open land where he has constructed two more floors on the existing structure in plot No.1. Defendant No.3 being the secretary of the defendant No.1-society, spent the society money and got removed the waste construction material from the open land. Defendant No.3 being the secretary of the defendant No.1-society, spent the society money and got removed the waste construction material from the open land. The municipal number mentioned by the appellant - plaintiff belongs to his residential house and it is nothing to do with the open space and the municipal tax paid by the appellant-plaintiff is assessed only to his residential house constructed in the plot. Appellant-plaintiff did not perfect his title by adverse possession over the suit schedule property. Municipal authorities and Revenue authorities have nothing to do with the same. Defendant No.4-society developed the layout and sold the plots to its members and the appellant - plaintiff is one of the members, who purchased plot No.1 admeasuring 300 sq.yds. The open land abutting the eastern side of the appellant-plaintiff's plot and plot No.24 form part and parcel of the layout developed by the society. The open land admeasuring 264 sq.yds was earmarked for the proposed cooperative societies in the MCH sanctioned layout. Appellant-plaintiff is the member of the housing societies and he suppressed the factum of ownership over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 - society is existing and is managed by elected committee. 5.3 Defendant No.4-society leased out the open plot of 264 sq.yds bearing No.8-3-167/A/24/A to defendant No.1-society by registered lease deed for 99 years commencing from 02.03.1996 permitting the defendant No.1 to make constructions, additions, alterations to the existing structure for the purpose of leasing out the said premises to the defendant No.1-society. Since then defendant No.1-society is in peaceful possession of 264 sq.yds., including the suit schedule property and the appellant-plaintiff is aware of the same. Appellant-plaintiff is claiming to be in possession of 37 sq.yds., out of total extent of 264 sq.yds. Defendant No.1-society is paying municipal tax since 1978 till date. In the month of July, 2007 when the appellant-plaintiff tried to undertake some activity in a part of the land abutting the compound wall, the defendant No.1 has lodged a complaint with police station SR Nagar, on 07.07.2007, after due inquiry, they have registered a case in crime No. 624 of 2007 under Section 447 of IPC against the appellant - plaintiff. After the registration of the criminal case appellant-plaintiff kept silent for more than five weeks and then filed this suit on 21.08.2007. 6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. After the registration of the criminal case appellant-plaintiff kept silent for more than five weeks and then filed this suit on 21.08.2007. 6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction? 3. To what relief? 7. Defendant No.4 (respondent No.4) is impleaded as per the orders in I.A.No.124 of 2009 dated 19.11.2009 and he filed a separate written statement, which is in the lines of the written statement filed by defendant No.1. 8. The learned Trial Court has not framed any additional issue. 9. Appellant is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 D.Bala Narasimha and PW3-Shaik Rahmatullah and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. President of defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. 10. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents thereon has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, which is impugned in the present appeal. 11.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Judge has totally erred in dismissing the suit by not considering the material placed before it with that of the evidence of PW1 to PW3. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that the suit was filed for relief of declaration and for grant of perpetual injunction. Suit schedule property does not form part and parcel of the land purchased by the original society i.e., respondent No.4-defendant No.4 under Exs.A2 to A5, which piece of land is in absolute and exclusive possession of the appellant - plaintiff. 11.2 Respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 society has purchased an extent of Ac.4-08 guntas which is equivalent to land admeasuring 20,328 sq.yds., under Exs.A2 to A5 and by misleading the municipal authorities they obtained layout under Ex.A8 showing an extent of land admeasuring 20,620 sq.yds., without having valid right. That is the reason why they left the suit schedule property on the southern side of electrical substation and northern side of the appellant-plaintiff’s property. 11.3 Ex.B1 is registered lease deed dated 02.03.1996 of the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 - society by that time the appellant – plaintiff was already in possession of the suit schedule property as per the endorsement of president of respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 society under Ex.A10. 11.3 Ex.B1 is registered lease deed dated 02.03.1996 of the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 - society by that time the appellant – plaintiff was already in possession of the suit schedule property as per the endorsement of president of respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 society under Ex.A10. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the suit schedule property of the appellant-plaintiff does not form part and parcel of the property admeasuring 264 sq.yds. The photographs i.e., Ex.A17 and the tax receipts i.e, Exs.A13 and A14 are the proof of possession of the appellant – plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Respondent No.4 – defendant No.4 – society failed to produce any witness nor filed any documentary evidence to disprove the possession of the appellant – plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Appellant – plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1990, which the learned Trial Court has lost sight of. The learned Trial Court has also not considered Ex.A10 dated 20.12.1990 wherein the president of respondent No.4 – defendant No.4 - society gave permission to the appellant directing him to take appropriate measures in protecting the suit schedule property. 11.4 The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant -plaintiff claim is not defended either by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3- defendant Nos.1 to 3 or by respondent No.4 – defendant No.4 as they have given up their evidence [evidence of DW1]. The Trial Court, instead of appreciating the documentary and oral evidence produced by the appellant - plaintiff and decreeing the suit, has dismissed the suit by considering the given up evidence of DW1 and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 11.5 Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties by looking into the documents marked thereon and rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Notice to respondent No.4 is given by way of paper publication. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the appellant – plaintiff has adduced proper evidence to declare him as the owner of the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction, if so? 12. Notice to respondent No.4 is given by way of paper publication. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the appellant – plaintiff has adduced proper evidence to declare him as the owner of the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction, if so? ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in O.S.NO.1821 of 2007, dated 30.03.2016 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court or not? POINT NOS. 1 & 2: 15. The prayer made in the plaint is as under: a) declaring the Plaintiff as absolute, exclusive owner, possessor and enjoyer of all that suit scheduled property by way of prescription of title, in view of his continuous and uninterrupted possession adversely against to all, b) to grant perpetual injunction consequentially, restraining the defendants, their members, their agents, representatives and all persons claiming through them or on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and his family members over the suit scheduled property and in any manner dispossessing them from the same, c) to award costs and expenses of the suit, d) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 16. The suit schedule property is as under: All that South-Eastern portion of size 21 sq.ft. x 16 sq.ft i.e., adm.37.33 sq.yds, farming part of all that house baring M.No.8- 3/167/A/1 and 8-3-167/A/1/A-I & II constructed on plot No.1 situated at Vikasapuri (Vikasnagar), Yousufguda (Eragadda Extn.), Hyderabad is bounded on: NORTH : Electrical Sub-station and 60 ft.wide road. SOUTH : Cooperative stores/Mars Tailor. EAST : 40 ft. Wide road WEST : portion of H.No.8-3-167/A/1 17. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 27.07.1978 bearing document No.2026/1978 executed by defendant No.4 - Society in favour of the appellant-plaintiff alienating plot No.1 admeasuring 300 sq.yds with boundaries as North: 60 ft wide road, South: Plot No.24, East: Electrical Sub-Station, West: Plot No.2. Exs.A2 to A5 are the certified copies of sale deeds dated 16.02.1976 executed by A.L.Sailoo and Mohd. Ibrahim Khan alienating different extents of land to defendant No.4 - society. Ex.A6 is the rough sketch of the suit schedule property filed by the plaintiff. Exs.A2 to A5 are the certified copies of sale deeds dated 16.02.1976 executed by A.L.Sailoo and Mohd. Ibrahim Khan alienating different extents of land to defendant No.4 - society. Ex.A6 is the rough sketch of the suit schedule property filed by the plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the market value certificate dated 23.08.2007 for House.No.8-3-167/A/1. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of layout plan of defendant No.4 - society for the site in survey No.137, with total area of 20,620 sq.yds of Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Ex.A9 is the plan showing the proposed construction of first and second floor on the existing ground floor of plot No.1 in survey No.137, H.No.8-3- 167/A/1 Vikaspuri Colony, Yousufguda Hyderabad of the plaintiff. Ex.A10 is the office copy of the letter dated 20.12.1990 addressed by the plaintiff to the president of defendant No.4 - society. Ex.A11 is the property tax demand notice dated 17.11.2006 of the plaintiff for H.No.8-3-167/A/1/A-I and II. Ex.A12 is the property tax demand notice dated 17.11.2007 issued by the GHMC to the plaintiff for the same door number. Exs.A13 and 14 are property tax receipts. Ex.A15 is the office copy of complaint lodged by the appellant-plaintiff in SR Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. Ex.A16 is the approved plan showing plot No.1 of survey No.137 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Ex.A17 are the photographs four in number. 18.1 As per Ex.A8 layout dated 27.07.1978 towards East of plot No.1 it is mentioned as existing substation and proposed cooperative store, towards South of plot No.1, plot No.24 is shown. Ex.A16 is the permission issued by MCH dated 20.09.1980 for construction of the house in plot No.1 purchased by the appellant - plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the building permission of the appellant – plaintiff for construction of first floor and second floor in plot No.1 on the existing ground floor of Municipal bearing No.8-3-167/A/1 of Vikaspuri Colony, Yusufguda, Hyderabad. 18.2 Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered lease deed dated 02.03.1996 executed by respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 in favour of respondent No.1-defendant No.1. Ex.A9 is the building permission of the appellant – plaintiff for construction of first floor and second floor in plot No.1 on the existing ground floor of Municipal bearing No.8-3-167/A/1 of Vikaspuri Colony, Yusufguda, Hyderabad. 18.2 Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered lease deed dated 02.03.1996 executed by respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 in favour of respondent No.1-defendant No.1. The schedule of the property is as under: All the premises bearing No.8-3-167A/24A totally measuring 264 sq.yards (241.4 sq.mtrs) with a built up area of 470 square feet (43.7 sq metres), more clearly shown in the enclosed plan, situated at Vikaspuri, S.R.Nagar (Post), Hyderabad – 38 and bounded on the: North : APSEB Room & 80ft wide road South : 40 ft wide road East : 60 ft wide road & Aurvedic hospital West : Plot Nos.24 & 1 18.3 As per the schedule in Ex.B1 towards western side, plot No.24 and plot No.1 are mentioned thereon, which is in conformity with Ex.A8 layout. 19. Ex.A10 is the letter addressed by the appellant-plaintiff to the president of defendant No.4 - society on 20.12.1990 requesting to maintain hygiene condition adjacent to his plot No.1. It is stated in the letter that on eastern side of his house, there is a piece of vacant space left by the society and it has become nuisance exclusively for him and his family members. There is an endorsement of one C.N.Srinivasan stating that “Mr. Balraju, since all the plots are handed over to individual members, you are aware that society is not keeping any security guards. Being neighbour your may kindly take all necessary steps in protecting the said land from nuisance”. 20. Appellant in his cross-examination stated that as per the directions of the society, he has constructed a compound wall to the suit schedule property and there is a substation on the Northern side of the scheduled property, a tailor shop on the Southern side, main road is on the Eastern side and on the West side his property is in existence. Defendant No.4 society has executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of defendant No.1 – society for the property consisting of the suit schedule property [Ex.B1] and he knows that defendant No.1 has taken the property on lease from defendant No.4 in the year 1996. Defendant No.4 society has executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of defendant No.1 – society for the property consisting of the suit schedule property [Ex.B1] and he knows that defendant No.1 has taken the property on lease from defendant No.4 in the year 1996. As per the admission made by the appellant in his cross examination the suit schedule property is covered by Ex.B1 registered lease deed dated 02.03.1996. 21.1 The evidence of PW2 - D.Bala Narasimha is that initially the suit schedule property was an open space, which was literally used as a dumping bin by the locality people which caused nuisance and unhygienic atmosphere in the locality, the appellant – plaintiff and his family members have suffered a lot and with the consent of the members and president of the society, the appellant – plaintiff has constructed a compound wall and a thatched shed for keeping the watchmen in preventing the people of the locality from throwing dust and debris etc. Appellant-plaintiff has also constructed a Pucca room for the livelihood of the watchmen in the year 1990 itself and defendant No.1-society is not having any right over the suit schedule property, the same is appurtenant land of electrical substation. Appellant – plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property since more than 21 years. 21.2 In his cross examination he stated that he was allotted plot No.24 by the defendant No.4-society and the suit schedule property is the left over land after allotment of plots by defendant No.4 – society. PW2 denied the suggestion that the appellant - plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 22. The evidence of PW3-Shaik Rehmathullah is same with that of PW2. In his cross examination he stated that he is a tenant in the premises No.6-3-167/A/24/1 Vikaspuri Colony, Hyderabad and he has taken the said premises on lease from defendant No.4 and he is paying rents to defendant Nos.1 to 3. The adjacent Mulgi is let out to Andha Bank ATM and he do not know whether defendant No.4 has let out the same with that of suit schedule property and adjacent Mulgi to defendant Nos.1 to 3 for 99 years. PW1 is his neighbour. PW3 denied the suggestion that appellant – plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. 23. PW1 is his neighbour. PW3 denied the suggestion that appellant – plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. 23. It is mentioned in paragraph No.12 of the judgment that after the cross examination of the appellant - PW1 by counsel defendant Nos.1 to 3 in part, subsequently he did not turn up to face further cross examination in spite of granting opportunity. Similar is the situation with D.W.1, which is stated in the judgment in paragraph No.21. 24. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.624 of 2007, the complainant therein is defendant No.1 – society who lodged complaint against appellant – plaintiff on 07.07.2007 and the offence is under Section 447 of IPC. Ex.B3 is the returned postal cover addressed to defendant No.2. Ex.B4 is the demand notice of MCH dated 14.11.2005 for H.No.8-3-167/A/24/1 of Vikaspuri Colony. Ex.B5 is the provisional receipt for check issued towards tax dated 18.11.2005. Ex.B6 is the tax payment made by defendant No.4-society for the house mentioned in Ex.B4. Ex.B7 is also the tax receipt in respect of the same house number. Ex.B8 is the layout permissions for construction of houses in favour of defendant No.4 dated 25.11.1978. 25. Appellant-plaintiff-PW1 failed to appear for further cross examination by the counsel on record for the best reasons known to them. The admission made by the appellant in his cross examination is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the suit schedule property is covered by Ex.B1-lease deed dated 02.03.1996 and the tax receipts filed by the appellant under Exs.A11 to A14 are pertaining to plot No.1 house. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons in paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 27 holding that the appellant-plaintiff was unable to prove his possession over the suit schedule property and alleged interference by the defendants. 26. The appellant - plaintiff has failed to prove by way of cogent evidence in seeking a declaration to declare him as the absolute owner, possessor of the suit schedule property and also failed to prove the interference by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 - defendant Nos.1 to 4 over the suit schedule property. 27. This Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court do not require interference of this Court as the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his case. 27. This Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court do not require interference of this Court as the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his case. There are no merits in the appeal, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 28. In the result, Appeal is dismissed without cost. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.