GANTI MADHUSARMA Vs. VELAGALA APPALANAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, counsel for the appellants and Sri K.S.R. Murthy, counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellants represented by the G.P.A. Holder had instituted a suit O.S. No. 275/75 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Parvathipuram. The suit was originally instituted for the relief of permanent injunction and subsequent thereto amended for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court of first instance on the strength of the respective pleadings and after settlement of Issues and after recording the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 and marking Exs. A-1 to A-19 and Exs. B-1 to B-12 ultimately had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree and aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful defenants - respondents in the present Second Appeal, preferred A.S.No. 27/88 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram and the appellate Court had reversed the Judgment of the Court of first instance and aggrieved by the same as against the said reversing Judgment, the appellants had presented this Second Appeal through the Power of Attorney agent and since the G.P.A. Holder who had been prosecuting the matter had expired in the present Second Appeal a memo was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants requesting the Court to permit them to engage an Advocate to further prosecute the matter by deleting the name of the G.P.A. and likewise at present the original plaintiffs in the suit are now prosecuting the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was admitted in view of the substantial questions of law raised in Ground No. 11 of the Memorandum of Appeal. As can be seen from the material available on record, the appellate Court mainly had reversed the Judgment viewing all the revenue records with suspicion in the light of the fact that the Power of Attorney holder was the Sarpanch of the village and the Village Munsif was his close relative. The questions of law raised in the present Second Appeal can be specified as hereunder,

(3.) At the outset it may be stated that Question No. 3 was raised by the counsel for the respondents on the ground that such question being a pure question of law, the respondents are entitled to raise such a question even in the Second Appeal. Contentions of Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi,