SHAIK GAFUR Vs. RAJANALA ANJANANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N. Ram Mohan Rao, Counsel for appellant and Sri G. Peda Babu, Counsel for respondent.

(2.) The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.88/83 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet filed the present appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the appellant herein/defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet in O.S.No.88/83 recorded evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, DW-1 to DW-6, marked Exs.A-1 to A-7, Exs.B-1 to B-15 and Ex.X-1 and on appreciation of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the respondent herein/plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession and accordingly decreed the suit. Hence the appeal.

(3.) Sri N. Ram Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the Issues settled before the Trial Court and the findings recorded and would contend that though it is stated by PW-1 that the plaint schedule property was purchased in 1946 by the father of the plaintiff there is not acceptable evidence to show that in between 1946 and the date of institution of the suit, at any point of time the family of the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property. The learned Counsel also would contend that on the other hand there is clear evidence available on record that at least from 1964 onwards continuously the appellant herein/defendant in the suit alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and hence in the light of the evidence available on record the stand taken by the appellant/defendant should have been accepted and the suit should have been dismissed. The learned Counsel also explained relating to Ex.A-3 and the recitals specified therein and would comment that the document is not inter-parties.