PURUSHOTHAM PATEL Vs. RAVULA LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants in the present Second Appeal. The substantial question of law raised by Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, the Learned counsel representing the appellants is as hereunder: Whether the plaintiffs have established their title to the plaint schedule property and had established their possession and whether the principle of possession follows title can be extended to the facts of the present case? Submissions made by Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad:

(2.) The Learned counsel Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, representing the appellants had made elaborate submissions in a methodical and systematic way taking me through the respective pleadings of the parties, the Issues settled, the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and the findings recorded by the appellate Court. The learned counsel with all emphasis had contended that both the Courts had totally ignored the evidence available on record and gave a finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel also had pointed out the boundaries and had maintained that the Courts below had totally erred in recording a finding relating to the very identity of the property. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to the reports of the Commissioners and also had pointed out that no objections had been filed to these reports and hence the reasons recorded by both the Courts in not relying upon the reports of the Commissioner are definitely unsustainable. The learned counsel had taken me through the contents of Exs.A-1 and A-2. While making further submissions, the learned counsel pointed out that the report of the Commissioner clearly shows that the plaint schedule property is located in S.No.1298 and it is the case of the plaintiffs that there is no survey number to the plaint schedule property and in view of the same, the relief of declaration of title should have been granted, the reason being that the plaintiffs miserably failed in establishing their title. The learned counsel also had taken me through the evidence of P.W.I in detail and had pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.I. The learned counsel also had pointed out that Exs.A-9 to A-12 in fact do not relate to the plaint schedule property and the findings recorded in this regard definitely are totally unsustainable. The learned counsel had taken me through the relevant portions of the findings recorded by both the Courts and had commented that definitely these findings can be said to be perverse findings not based on the evidence or at any rate improper appreciation of evidence and hence the plaintiffs are bound to fail and the defendants are bound to succeed since such suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be decreed at all. Strong reliance was placed on Chandan Mull Indra Kumar v. Chiman Lal Giridhar Das Parekh, Neelakantan and others v. Mallika Begum2, Sarasvjathi v. S. Ganapathy3, State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh, Batakrushna Das v. Natabar Behera. Submissions made by Sri C. Subba Rao:

(3.) The counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs Sri C. Subba Rao, in a soft and systematic way had pointed out that all the questions which are raised and all the aspects which are canvassed by the unsuccessful defendants before this Court are all questions of fact and no question of law is involved, much less, substantial question of law. The learned counsel also commented that it is not as though that the reports of the Commissioners had not been considered at all and however even otherwise merely because those reports had been considered in a particular way, by that itself it cannot be said that the findings recorded are perverse. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the concurrent findings which had been recorded by both the Courts below and ultimately had concluded his submissions stating that after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, especially in the light of the boundaries, the property had been well identified and this finding relating to the identity of the property definitely is a pure question of fact and hence such finding cannot be disturbed in this Second Appeal and in view of the same, the appellants are bound to fail in the Second Appeal.