THOTA KISTAIAH Vs. NIKODE BHEEMERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts is the appellant herein. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title relating to the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.11.78 cents in Sy.No.102 of Khairgaon village and for other consequential reliefs. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S.No.14 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Asifabad for the reliefs referred to supra on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff is the owner and has been in possession of the said property and being in possession of the said property for more than 12 years, the respondent-plaintiff also had perfected his title by adverse possession and in view of the threats posed by the appellant-defendant to take possession of the property, the said suit was instituted. The appellant-defendant had taken a specific stand that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of the land in Sy.No.102 measuring Ac.17.13 cents and, in fact, he never threatened the respondent- plaintiff and he had been put in possession by the authorities as per law. It was further pleaded in the written statement that his father was a protected tenant of the suit land and after his death he continues to be the protected tenant of the suit land and the Tahasildar, Asifabad, passed eviction orders on 5-5-1982 and by virtue of the said order the suit land was delivered to him by the Revenue Inspector. It was also pleaded that the suit land is an Inam land. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, certain issues and additional issues had been settled, which are as hereunder:

(2.) The learned District Munsif, Asifabad, after recording the evidence of P.W.I to P.W.3, D.W.I to D.W.3 and marking Exs. A-l to A-17 and Exs. B-1 to B-11 and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-defendant filed A.S.No.10 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Asifabad, and the learned Judge after appreciating all the facts and circumstances confirmed the judgment of the Court of first instance. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful appellant-defendant.

(3.) Sri Sreedhar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant had drawn my attention to the substantial questions of law framed as ground Nos.2,3, 4,5 and 6 in the second appeal and the said questions are as follows: