(1.) THIS review has been filed by the Appellant in SA No. 646 of 1998. The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No. 119 of 1986 filed for declaration of tile and perpetual injunction against the defendants. After filing of the written statement, the defendants 4 to 6 were brought on record. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendants preferred as No. 95 of 1993, it was allowed by the appellate Court by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed and this Court through the judgment, dated 2. 7. 2008 dismissed the second appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Review Petition has been filed contending that this Court, without noticing the judgment of this Court in jakkamreddy Venugopal Reddy v. Sridevi sarannavarathrulu, 2008 (5) ALD 520 = 2008 (4) ALT 762, wherein the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165, was followed, made the following observation in para 13 of the judgment :
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single judge committed error in holding that because the plaintiff did not file the suit in respect of 99 cents in S. No. 718/1, as PW4 claimed possession of the same, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie title or possession over the suit land, which was against the judgment of the Supreme court, wherein the Supreme Court observed that there must be first a foundation laid in the pleadings and question of fact arrived at by Courts of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. He further submitted that the defendants did not raise any plea of limitation either before the trial Court or appellate Court, so also before this Court. But this Court, suo motu observed that even if the defendants did not raise the statutory plea of limitation, the suit is barred by limitation, therefore, he requested to review the order.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to jakkamreddy Venugopal Reddy's case (supra), wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as follows :