(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti dated 2-4-1996 dismissing O.S. No.246 of 1985 and confirmed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati by his judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 in A.S. No.70 of 1996.
(2.) Both the parties are referred here as arrayed in the trial court.
(3.) Both the courts below concurrently held that the suit schedule building belonged to late Manisankar represented by defendants 1 to 4, his legal heirs, and the said Manisankar sold the same in favour of defendant No.5, a non-resident Indian and daughter of defendant No.6 who was admittedly his partner during his life time. I have no manner of doubt that both the courts below missed the crucial point in this case and jumped at an erroneous conclusion.