N SITADEVI Vs. A BERATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants. No representation for the respondents.

(2.) The review petitioners seek review of the judgment and decree dated 3-3-2000 in S.A. No. 520 of 1989 passed by this Court. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition may be stated as follows :The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the suit O.S. No. 160 of 1979 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal for the reliefs of declaration of title in respect of the suit property and for consequential perpetual injunction. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have made out a case of their title and also held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and on this ground, the reliefs of declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property were granted. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the first appeal in A.S. No. 41 of 1986 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Warangal. Learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the findings recorded by him that the defendants have succeeded in making out a case of their acquisition of title to the suit property by adverse possession. Obviously, on this ground, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(3.) In the second appeal before this Court, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court have been challenged on various grounds. The substantial question of law, on which the second appeal was admitted, was that the first appellate Court has erred in recording a finding as to the acquisition of title by the defendants by adverse possession in the absence of any pleading in that behalf and in the absence of framing of any issue on that question.