DANDAMUDI NARASAYYA Vs. MOVVA SUBBAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is one of limitation and we consider that it has been rightly decided by Abdur Rahman, J., from whose judgment this appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondents for a declaration of title to certain immovable property in the Kistna District and a decree for possession and mesne profits. On the 4 May, 1915, the first appellant gave the property in suit to the first respondent who is his brother-in- law under a registered deed. Thereupon the first respondent and his brother, the second respondent, went into possession and remained in possession until the 16 July 1918, when the appellants entered upon the property. On the 9 February, 1930, the respondents asserted their title and dispossessed the appellants who within six months brought a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. As they established their possession within six months of the suit, a decree was passed in their favour. This resulted in the Court restoring possession to the appellants on the 4 September, 1931. The decree passed in favour of the appellants did not, of course, affect the question of title and the respondents were at liberty to file the suit but of which this appeal arises. This they did on the 24 November, 1931. The appellants raised three pleas in bar. In the first place they said that the deed Of gift executed by the first appellant in favour of the first respondent was a nominal transaction and consequently the title remained in the first appellant. In the second place they averred that the respondents had not been in possession of the property within 12 years of the suit. In this connection they contended that the period from the 9 February, 1930 to the 4 September, 1931, should be ignored. In the third place they averred that they had acquired title by adverse possession.

(3.) The District Munsiff of Gudivada who tried the suit held that there had been no valid gift by the first appellant to the first respondent, that the respondents had not been in possession of the property within twelve years of the institution of the suit and that the plea of title by adverse possession raised by the defendants was well founded. Consequently he dismissed the suit. The respondents appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, who disagreed with the findings of the District Munsiff. The Subordinate Judge held that the gift was a real one and the deed valid, that the respondents had been in possession until the 16 July, 1918 and also from the 9 February, 1930, until the 4 September, 1931, and that the appellants had not established a title by adverse possession. The result was that the respondents suit was decreed with costs. The appellants appealed to this Court, but without success, Abdur Rahman, J., agreeing with the findings of the Subordinate Judge.