Cyriac Joseph, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) According to the Appellant Safiya Bee, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969, she had purchased from one Mohd. Hussain houses bearing Nos. 2-5-254, 2-5-255 and 2-5-256 along with the appurtenant lands. The Respondent Mohd. Vajahath Hussain alias Fasi forcibly occupied the house bearing No. 2-5-256 (re-numbered as 4-3-65). The building has a plinth area of 1114 sq.ft. and the appurtenant vacant land has an area of 9341 sq.ft. Alleging that the Respondent is a land grabber, the Appellant filed L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 under Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Special Tribunal, Adilabad seeking possession of the house and the appurtenant land from the Respondent. The Respondent contested L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 and contended that he was not a land grabber, that he, his mother and his brothers were in possession of the disputed property in their own rights under law and that they were the owners of the disputed property. He also disputed the claim of the Appellant that she had purchased the property as per registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969. He alleged that the registered Sale Deed was a fabricated and concocted document and that late Mohd. Hussain was not in a position to sell the property as he was not of sound mind at the relevant time. According to the Respondent, the Appellant did not have the financial capacity to purchase the house and there was no need for Mohd. Hussain to sell the house.
(3.) After considering the pleadings in the case and the evidence adduced, the Special Tribunal allowed the application on 13th June, 1997 and directed the Respondent to deliver the property to the Appellant. In its order dated 13th June, 1997 passed in L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990, the Special Tribunal held that: (a) Mohd. Hussain executed the registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969 in respect of the disputed property in favour of the Appellant after receiving the consideration; (b) The Appellant is the owner of the disputed property; (c) Mohd. Hussain was in sound state of mind till his death; (d) The Respondent could not establish that Mohd. Hussain had gifted the northern portion of the house to his younger son Mohd. Zafar Hussain and the southern portion with its open land to his elder son Shaukat Hussain; (e) The Respondent has grabbed the disputed property and being a land grabber he is liable to be evicted from the disputed land; and (f) The mother and the brothers of the Respondent are not in possession of the disputed property and the Respondent alone has been in possession of the property after grabbing it. ;