PADMAMMA Vs. PARVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed for recovery of possession of the lands in S. Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and for partition and separate possession of the lands in S. Nos. 640, 641, 645, 646 and 667. By a compromise decree in O.S. No. 20/59 on the file of the District Munsif, Kodangal, the plaintiff got title to S. Nos. 532, 640, 641, 643 to 646 and 667 of Kosigi Village, measuring 29 acres 29 guntas. This compromise decree is between the plaintiff and Saireddy's father. Subsequently, Saireddy challenged the compromise decree as null and void by filing the suit being O.S.No. 8/60 and the suit was decreed. But, the District Court leversed the decree by its judgment in A.S. 19/70 and held that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the lands bearing S.Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and that she is entitled for a half share in the remaining five survey numbers. The second appeal filed by Saireddy was dismissed. The plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit lands, during the pendency of O.S. 8/60. As Saireddy and his legal representatives did not deliver the possession, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession of S.Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and for partition and separate possession of her half share in the remaining five survey numbers. Among other pleas, the main plea raised by the defendants is that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit lands and that her right became extinguished by lapse of time and the consent decree passed in O.S.No. 20/59 is null and void and Section 47 of the Tenancy Act also operated as a bar. The trial Court held that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. On appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff was dispossessed, during the pendency of O.S. 8/60, and the suit filed beyond 12 years from the date of such dispossession is barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents seeking to sustain the judgment of the lower appellate Court contended that the parties have been litigating in the Courts wifh regard to the title of the property and as such, the question of adverse possession or the suit being barred by limitation does not arise.