THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1326 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The 5th defendant in O.S.No.4 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is the appellant. The deceased-1st respondent filed the suit against respondents 2 to 6 and the appellant, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.6.50 cents of land in Sy.No.183/2. In brief, the contention of the 1st respondent was that his grand- father Merikapudi Ramaiah had three sons by name Subbaiah (father of the 1st respondent), Nagaiah, Naga Seshu and a daughter by name, Chenchamma and owned Acs.120.00 of land. The husband of Chenchamma by name, Mupparaju Ramaiah was said to have been taken as illotom and all the children of Subbaiah were given Acs.30.00 acres of land each in the family partition. The suit schedule property is said to be part of the land allotted to the father of the 1st respondent by name, Subbaiah. He pleaded that the appellant and respondents 2 to 6, claiming to be purchasers from the lineal descendants of Chenchamma, are claiming rights over the property. The suit was contested by the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 by filing separate written-statements. The principal contest was by the appellant herein. He stated that the suit schedule property is part of the land, that fell to the share of Mupparaju Ramaiah and Chenchamma and that Kotaiah, the son of the said couple had sold the suit land to four individuals through a sale deed and the 1st respondent acted as an attestor to the sale deed. He did not make any specific averment as to the nature of his rights. The plea of the other respondents was to the effect that the 4th defendant, i.e. the 5th respondent herein is the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.183/2 and that the appellant is the lessee. The source of the 5th respondent is said to be purchase, under Ex.B-20, executed by M. Kotaiah. The trial Court framed initially, three issues, and on two later occasions, additional issues were framed. The suit was decreed. The appellant herein filed A.S.No.103 of 2000 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 06-11-2006. Hence this Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court and lower Appellate Court have undertaken discussion mostly from the point of view of the weakness of the case of the defendants in the suit, instead of requiring the 1st respondent to prove his case. Learned counsel contends that assuming that the 1st respondent had proved his title, the appellant had perfected his title by way of adverse possession and the suit ought not to have been decreed. The suit filed by the 1st respondent was for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. He based his title upon succession. There is no denial of the fact that an extent of 120 acres was owned by Sri Merikapudi Ramaiah and he partitioned the same among his three sons, Subbaiah, the father of the 1st respondent, Nagaiah; Naga Seshu, and daughter, Chenchamma. While 1st respondent pleaded that the suit schedule properties are part of the land allotted to the share of his father, Subbaiah, the plea of the appellant was that, it has fallen to the share of Chenchamma, and her son, Kotaiah sold that in favour of the 5th respondent (4th defendant). On behalf of the 1st respondent, PWs 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, and respondents 2 to 6, DWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-28 were filed. Exs.X-1 and X-2, which are sale deeds, that have bearing upon the suit; have also taken on record. On dismissal of the suit, the appellant alone carried the matter in appeal. The lower Appellate Court did not frame any independent points, but discussed the matter with reference to the relevant issues and ultimately agreed with the findings of the trial Court. It is not demonstrated that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. This Court finds that unnecessary facts were pleaded in the process of tracing the title and voluminous judgments had to be delivered by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. The undisputed facts are that the 1st respondent based his claim on succession, and the relationship pleaded by him was not disputed. The 1st appellant and other respondents admitted that the suit schedule property is part of the land held by the common ancestor, Merikapudi Ramaiah. According to them, the land has fallen to the share of the daughter of Ramaiah, by name, Chenchamma and son of Chenchamma by name, Kotaiah had sold it. The dispute is in relation to the land in Sy.No.183/2. The alleged sale effected by M.Kotaiah is, as to the land in Sy.No.166. The appellant was not clear as to the manner in which he acquired the rights. At one place, it is mentioned that he is the lessor of some of the respondents and at another place, it was suggested that he is in possession of the land and thereafter perfected his title. Be that as it may, the basis for the appellant to claim the right, vis-à-vis the suit schedule property is the purchase made by 5th respondent from Kotaiah, under Ex.B-16. It is from the 5th respondent that the appellant is said to have acquired rights. Ex.B-16 is a document, in respect of the land in Sy.No.166. By the time the suit was filed, the document was 35 years old. At no point of time, any correction was sought as to the description of the property. It is only in the written-statement, that the appellant came forward with the plea, that in Ex.B-16, the survey number of the land was wrongly mentioned as 166, instead of Sy.No.183/2. On the face of it, the plea is untenable and the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have rightly rejected it. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-08-2011. KO