BHUDEVI Vs. BHAGIRATHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two second appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) APPELLANT in Second Appeal No. 206 of 1996 is the plaintiff and appellants in Second appeal No. 390 of 1996 are the defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit as an indigent person for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property which is O. 22 gts of wet land in Sy. No. 129 of Arsepalli village within the boundaries mentioned therein which hereinafter would be called as 'the suit land', alleging that her father gifted the suit land to her long back and that her brother, Bhoomaiah, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, who died about two years prior to filing of the suit, was managing the same on her behalf and was giving half share of the produce to her for being in permissive possession of the suit land on her behalf, and after his death the defendants did not pay her the half share of the produce and in spite of her request refused to deliver possession of the suit land to her and so she got issued a legal notice to them on 28-12-1981 requesting them to vacate the suit land, but they having received the same failed to send a reply or comply with her request and hence the suit. Defendants filed a common written statement denying gift of the suit land to plaintiff by her father and contending that the suit land was mutated in her name as pattedar to avoid tenancy and ceiling laws and such nominal entry cannot be treated as proof of her title and denied the allegation that Bhoomaiah was cultivating the suit land on behalf of the plaintiff and was giving half share of the produce to her. They also denied receipt of notice dated 28-12-1981 said to have been issued by the plaintiff to them and contended the inasmuch as they and their predecessors-in-title have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land for over 28 years openly and continuously, they have, in any event, prescribed title thereto by adverse possession.