IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.1070 OF 2010 Between: Ananth Rao Sharma (died) and others … APPELLANTS AND Pandikonda Bagaiah (died) and others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.1070 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.57 of 1993 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jogipet, filed the appeal in A.S.48 of 2009 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2006 passed by the trial Court dismissing their suit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The lower appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present second appeal before this Court. 2. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs claim to have been dispossessed by the defendants from the suit schedule property, an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas situated in Survery No.253 of Tenkati Village, Shankarampet – A Mandal, Medak District, in the first week of July, 1990. They filed the suit O.S.No.57 of 1993 seeking recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, for past mesne profits for a period of three years from July, 1990 till July,1993 and for future mesne profits from 1993 till the delivery of possession at the rate of Rs.650/- per year and for costs. The suit was instituted on 04.09.1993. 4. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated 07.10.2006 held against the plaintiffs on merits and dismissed their suit. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred an appeal before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak in A.S.No.48 of 2009. 5. Perusal of the judgment dated 29.03.2010 passed by the lower appellate Court reflects that the said Court did not go into the merits of the case. Opining that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation, it dismissed the appeal. The lower appellate Court was of the view that the prayer for recovery of possession was relatable to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), and therefore, the suit ought to have been filed within six months from the date of dispossession. As the plaintiffs admittedly filed the suit beyond this period, the lower appellate Court concluded that it was barred by limitation. It is however interesting to note that the judgments relied upon by the lower appellate Court in this regard clearly demonstrated that in the event the suit for recovery of possession was filed beyond the period of six months as stipulated in Section 6 of the Act, it would not have the effect of non-suiting the plaintiffs in the suit but would only enlarge the scope of enquiry in such suit. In the event the suit for recovery of possession is filed within the period of six months from the date of dispossession, the Court would be required to ascertain the said fact without going into the issue of title and once it was established that such dispossession did take place otherwise than in due course of law, the Court has to grant relief under Section 6 of the Act. But if such a suit is filed beyond the period of six months, the Court would be required to go into the issue of title and ascertain as to whether the defendant(s) in the suit was/were entitled to remain in possession. Having extracted the legal position as laid down in the judgments, the lower appellate Court failed to understand the import thereof and apply the same to the case on hand. The lower appellate Court therefore erred in dismissing the appeal on the short ground that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by limitation. As the lower appellate Court failed to examine the issues raised by the plaintiffs in the appeal on this erroneous assumption, the matter must necessarily be re-heard on merits by the lower appellate Court. The judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, in A.S.No.48 of 2009 are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the said Court for consideration of the appeal afresh on its merits. Considering the fact that the matter is of sufficiently old vintage, the lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The Second Appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 29, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.1070 OF 2010 July 29, 2011