KAVALI HANUMANNA Vs. HUZURAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar dated 8-4-1985 passed in A.S. No.32/1982. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Narayanapet dated 20-1-1982 passed in O.S. No.41 /1980. In other words, the trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's suit and on an appeal filed by the defendants, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and consequently dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, the plaintiff is now before this Court in this second appeal.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel Sri T. Veerabhadriah strenuously contended that the appellate Court has given a finding without considering certain material evidence on record. He further submitted that the appellate Court did not take into account the decree in favour of the plaintiff dated 7th Shererwar 1355 fasli passed in O.S. 214/1/1355 fasli by the District Munsif Court, Narayanpet. On the basis the gift deed dated 7th Shererwar 1355 Fasli in favour of plaintiff vide Ex.A-1 and the said decree vide Ex.A-1, the plaintiff has clearly established his case both for declaration of title and as well as for injunction. He submitted that on the basis of Ex.A-1, the gift deed executed by Yellamma in favour of the plaintiff, the property has been transferred to the plaintiff and the plaintiff being a minor/ his father acting as a guardian, has taken the delivery of the possession. Even the allegations made in the suit in O.S. No.214/1/1355 fasli itself shows that the delivery of the possession was taken and consequently the decree for injunction was granted under Ex.A-1. The appellate Court did not consider both the documents together. He submitted that the gift deed is more than thirty years old and the same is required to be considered without any further proof in order to hold that the plaintiff has proved both title and possession over the property. He also submitted that the certified copy of Faisal Patti of the year 1955-56 vide Ex.A-3 and the certified copies of the pahanies from the years 1958-59 to 1978-79 vide Exs. A-4 to A-19 clearly establish the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The certified copy of the Sethwar, 1344 Fasli vide Ex,A-20 also is an important document to prove both the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In addition to that, the plaintiff has produced the revenue receipts vide Exs.A-2 to A-29 and from Exs.A-31 to A-40 for the years 1971 to 1980. The report of the Revenue Inspector vide Ex.A-30 clearly establishes the possession of the plaintiff over the property. He further submitted that in addition to them, there is ample evidence on the side of the plaintiff, and P.Ws.l to 9 speak to the case of the plaintiff's title and possession. Without considering the entire evidence on record, as done by the trial Court, the appellate Court not have reversed the decree of the trial Court. The appellate Court, as a fact finding Court, should consider the entire material on record to reverse the findings of the trial Court and that has not been done so. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that admittedly Hanumanna was the owner and after his death, the patta was changed in the name of Yellamma and therefore, Yellamma became the absolute owner. Even if it is taken that Yellamma, was at least a limited owner and after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, she has become the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. He stated that admittedly, Yellamma died after Hindu Succession Act came into force, therefore, even if it is assumed that at the time of execution of the gift deed she was.a limited owner, but she has become the absolute owner after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and as such there would be feeding the grant by estoppel and consequently the plaintiff would become the absolute owner, even on this count also. He stated that as against this evidence,defendantshavenotproduced any document evidence, except some documents which are fabricated by them, as held by the trial Court. There fore, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the respondents Sri Mahipathi Rao, supported the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and contended that the appellate Court having assessed the entire evidence on record has rightly set aside the findings of the trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit and this is not a case for interference. He stated that the findings of fact recorded by the appellate Court would be binding on this Court and the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.