the learned Single Judge in CCCA No.49 of 1983 dated 12.2.1996 confirming the judgment of the Court of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.109 of 1968 dated 29.7.1982. In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff, Sri Krishna, instituted the suit for declaration of title to the suit schedule property admeasuring 2096.7 Sq.yards out of Acs.1.02 guntas in S.No.122 of Mallepalli Village of Hyderabad District, and for recovery of possession. The Indian Institute of Economics was, initially, the sole defendant. Subsequently the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Hyderabad, was impleaded as the second defendant since the first defendant came up with the plea that the land was allotted to them by the Government for construction of the building of the first defendant. Be that as it is the case of the plaintiff, in a nutshell, is as follows. The suit schedule land was owned by Mallepalli Jagirdar, Ahmed Ali Mirza. He granted perpetual lease in 1345 Fasli in favour of one Parasuram. The lease was also confirmed by the Tahsildar in a letter to the Cantonment Officer as the land originally belonged to the Military. This resulted in recognition of the lessee as the possessor in Faisal Patti and Pahani of 1346 Fasli and, after issue of Circular No.2, dated 18.10.1949, Parasuram became the pattadar. The Jagirdar issued letter of confirmation dated 21.8.1957 confirming the lease. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land from Parasuram under registered sale deed dated 03.9.1964. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (HMC) granted permission on 22.11.1965 for construction of a compound wall. The Director and officials of the first defendant began interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, and they trespassed into the land on 10.7.1966. A case, being M.C.No.785 of 1966, was filed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned III City Magistrate, City Criminal Court to restrain the officials of the first defendant. The same was, however, dismissed. In the meanwhile, the Director and the Registrar assured the plaintiff that they would not interfere. They addressed the Government for allotment of alternative land. The plaintiff then erected a hut. But, on 11.10.1968, the first defendant engaged coolies, dumped stones and dug foundation pits. The Government or the first defendant have no right over the property and, therefore, the suit for declaration.
