PATHAN SABIRABI Vs. SHAIK RASOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.285 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, is the appellant. She filed the suit against her brother, the defendant, for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property, a house constructed covering an area of 47.3 square yards in Tenali Town, described in the suit schedule, and for recovery of possession thereof. It was pleaded that the father of the appellant and the respondent had purchased an extent of 108.6 square yards through a document, dated 05.10.1968, and thereafter gifted an extent of 61.3 square yards to the respondent in the year 1985. As regards the suit schedule property, a sale deed, dated 10.07.1990, Ex.A.1, is said to have been executed in favour of the appellant. She further pleaded that in the suit schedule property, her parents were living, her father died in the year 1994 and mother died in June, 2005. She alleged that after the death of their mother, the respondent occupied the suit schedule premises, even while giving his own premises on lease. Notices were exchanged between the parties, before the suit was filed.

(2.) THE respondent filed a written statement, opposing the suit. He admitted the relationship and certain facts, but denied the transfer of the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant.

(3.) MS . Kumari G.K.V.D., learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower appellate Court committed error in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court. She submits that Ex.A.1 is a registered document, and it stand proved with the filing thereof, and depositions of P.Ws.1 to 3. She contends that even when a specific question was put to the respondent who deposed as D.W.1, as to whether he intends to get Ex.A.1 examined by handwriting expert, he gave answer in the negative. She further submits that the respondent admitted that he did not even see Ex.A.1, and still, the plea that Ex.A.1 was forged, was accepted by the lower appellate Court and certain findings, which are contrary to the settled principles of law, were recorded.