KANTHAMMA Vs. GANGULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff K. Mogili Reddi in O.S.No.32 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Palamner, against judgment and decree dated 15-2-1993 in A.S.No.2 of 1986 on the file of 1 st Additional District Judge at Chittoor setting aside judgment and decree dated 10-10-1985 in O.S.No.32of 1981.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: Papi Reddi, father of the sole plaintiff, Appi Reddi, who is the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 and three others are brothers. The suit property is the ancestral property of the family consisting of the above brothers. At one point of time some brothers got separated their share and left the joint family. Later, in the year 1959 or so Papi Reddi and Appi Reddi also got divided the joint family properties among themselves. In the suit property, 2/3rd share was allowed to Papi Reddi and the remaining 1/3rd share was allotted to Appi Reddi. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming that in the year 1959 Appi Reddi sold his 1/3rd share for a sum of Rs.75-00 to the plaintiff. Even according to the plaintiff the said sale is oral sale. It is the claim of plaintiff that from the date of his purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of entire suit property in his own right. He claims that even otherwise he perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. He filed the suit seeking only one relief, namely, relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4th defendant is the husband of third defendant. The defendants denied that Appi Reddi sold his share to the plaintiff at any time. They also denied that the plaintiff perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. They claimed to be absolute owners of suit property. According to them during the life time of Appi Reddi plaintiff being the brother's son of Appi Reddi was looking after cultivation of the suit land on behalf of Appi Reddi. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the trial court settled the following issues and additional issue for trial.

(3.) At the time of admission of this appeal, the learned admission Judge treated the following points formulated in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal.