LAXMAIAH Vs. NIZAMABAD CO OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two second appeals raise common and similar questions to be determined by this Court. The defendant in the respective suits is the appellant in the respective second appeals herein. Two suits are filed by the plaintiff -respondent namely the Nizamabad Co -operative Sugar Factory Limited, Nizamabad against the respective defendants separately for eviction from the respective plaint schedule sites and for vacant possession of the same together with past and future profits on the ground that the schedule sites in S.No.482/5 belong to the plaintiff and that the respective defendants encroached respective portions of the site without any manner of right. The respective defendants/appellants opposed the suit mainly on the ground that the respective schedule sites are not in S.No.482/5 of Jankampet village and that they are in S.No.479/7 of the same village and that they acquired title to the property by adverse possession and that they have been in possession of the sites having purchased the same under agreements for sale which culminated into registered sale deeds marked as Ex.B.1. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suits; and on appeals filed by the respective defendants, the lower appellate Court dismissed both the appeals, resulting in the respective defendants approaching this Court with these second appeals.

(2.) THESE two second appeals were admitted by the then learned Judge of this Court on the ground that ground Nos.3 and 4 of the memorandum of grounds of second appeal raise substantive questions of law. They are as follows: ''In case of boundary dispute with regard to survey numbers, can the boundary be determined without issuing notice to the affected parties? Whether a document brought up, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions under Section 10(i) & (ii) of A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, can be relied on to adjudicate the boundary dispute? ''

(3.) THE Courts below held that the respective suit sites in both the suits is in S.No.482/5 and not in S.No.479/7 on the basis of evidence of PW.2 who is the survey official, and Ex.A.4 panchanama prepared at the time of survey by PW.2 in the presence of mediators. It is further evidence of PW.2 that at the time of measurement of the land by him, apart from mediators, the respective defendants was also present. This fact was not challenged in cross -examination of PW.2, as noticed by the Courts below.