THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD A.S.No.766 of 1988 & Tr.A.S.No.1495 of 1991 JUDGMENT (Per BPR,J) These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 30-6-1987 passed in O.S.No.33 of 1982 and L.A.O.P.No.77 of 1983, on the file of Subordinate Judge Court, Tenali whereby and where- under, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and consequently answered the reference in O.P.No.77 of 1983 in favour of the plaintiff. Background facts in nutshell leading to filing of both the appeals by the defendants are:- V.Rama Tulasamma is the plaintiff. Jasti Subba Rao and Jasti Anasuya are the defendants in O.S.No.33 of 1982. The defendants are no other than the daughter and son-in-law of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff gave the suit schedule land to her at the time of her marriage in the year 1939. Her father died in the year 1950. Thereafter, her brothers including the first defendant executed a gift deed dated 11.5.1954 in her favor in respect of the suit schedule land. Some differences cropped up between the parties. Thereupon, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants to deliver the possession of the property. The defendants issued a reply setting up the plea that the plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant at the time of her marriage to the first defendant. Since then, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. They also pleaded that they perfected the title by adverse possession. When there is a dispute with regard to part of the suit schedule property, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The learned Subordinate Judge entertained the reference as L.A.O No.77 of 1983. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues for trial inn O.S.No.33 of 1982. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the plaint scheldule property? 2. Whether the plaint schedule property was announced as ‘Varakatnam’ at the time of marriage of the defendant with the eldest daughter of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendant was in possession of the plaint schedule property for more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit in his own right and perfected his title by adverse possession? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any profits for the years 1976 to 1977, 1978 to 1979 and 1979 to 1980 as alleged in the plaint? 5. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked 8 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the defendants, they examined 4 witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 4 and marked 57 documents as Exs.B.1 to B.57. The trial Court on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and thereby decreed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment dated 30-6-1987 and consequently reference in O.P.No.77 of 1983 came to be answered in favour of the plaintiff. Assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.33 of 1982, the defendant field A.S.No.147 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur. So also they filed A.S.No.766 of 1988 on the file of this Court assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.77 of 1983. A.S.No.147 of 1987 came to be filed on the file of this Court and numbered as Tr.A.S.No.1495 of 1991. Heard Sri S.Surya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.Y.K.Rayudu, Mr.M.Sudhir Kumar and Government Pleader for Appeals on behalf of the respondents. On appraisal of the entire submissions made across the Bar at various length of time and on perusal of the entire material on record, the point which arises for consideration is as to the sustainability of the claim of the appellant herein in regard to the suit schedule properties. There is no dispute in regard to the relationship of the parties. As already stated the dispute is between the mother and her daughter and son-in-law. Originally the property belonged to Jasti Venkataiah, and the plaintiff is his first daughter and she claimed that the suit schedule property, as per the plaint allegations was given to her as “Pasupukunkuma”. Though the father did not execute the deed, yet the father used to give the produce till his death and later his sons continued to do so. Subsequently to avoid all compilations a Registered Gift Deed was executed on 11-5-1954 in favour of the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.A.1. The property was given to Defendant No.1 for managing, who used to manage and give the produce and the returns to the plaintiff till 1977, and thereafter, he committed default. In view of the same, the plaintiff got issued a notice in Ex.A.2, to which, a reply was given in Ex.A.4 by the defendants claiming adverse possession. Therefore, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit. In the meanwhile, since there has been Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of the part of the property to an extent of Ac.0-14 cents, the dispute was referred to the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Virtually, the claims as set forth in a suit and the dispute in the reference run on the same lines. Therefore, the suit in O.S.No.33 of 1982 was taken up along with the said land acquisition O.P in L.A.O.P.No.77 of 1983. In the written statement and the claim as set forth by the defendant there is a reiteration of plea of adverse possession alleging that the defendant No.1 was married in the year 1950 and he happened to be the brother of the plaintiff and the property was given to them as Varakatnam and they continued to enjoy the property accordingly. Therefore, the claim of the defendants was not of adverse possession, and admittedly since they claimed absolute possession and enjoyment all along without any interruption in their own right, title and interest, they have perfected the title and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. During the course of the enquiry, as already stated, the plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 reiterated the entire version as such and she sought to rest her claim based on the alleged Pasupukumkuma and the later gift deed, which is marked as Ex.A.1. Since, she is normally a resident of a different village by name Swarna at a far away place, she has to request her son-in-law who is the first defendant to manage, and accordingly, he was managing and was sending the produce till 1975-1976. Since there was a default later, a notice was issued by the plaintiff, which was marked as Ex.A.2, for which a reply was given by the defendant No.1 in Ex.A.4. The plaintiff had also marked Ryot Pass-book in Ex.A.5, which show the mutation effected in her favour. PW.2 is no other than the husband of the plaintiff, who reiterates the very same version as stated by PW.1. PW.3 is another witness in support of the plaintiff, who again reiterates the claim of the plaintiff. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 supported by the other two witnesses DWs.2 and 3. There is a consistent version on their behalf about the alleged plea of ‘Varakatnam’ at the time of marriage of the Defendant No.1 with the daughter of the plaintiff in the year 1950. The documents sought to be rested in support of their plea are Exs.B.1 to B.57, of which Exs.B.6 to B.54 are nothing but the Cist receipts. Thus, the case of the defendants in defense squarely rests on the plea of adverse possession and perfection of title in their own right. It is now well settled that as far as plea of adverse possession is concerned, necessarily, it should be totally independent, unconnected with any admission of right, title and interest of whatsoever nature of the other party nor claim through them. Once there is admission of the title on the other side any amount of possession as such can never be termed nor can amount to be adverse possession and nor would it confer any right by perfection of title. The Trial Court while disposing of both the matters has gone in detail on all these aspects and did not find favour with the said plea, even though, as a fact the defendants happened to be in possession. It was categorically held that there must be animus possessendi adverse to the interest of the real owner and that too to the knowledge of the real owner, which are found to be absent. Thus, on all the counts and on all the issues the trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from the plea of adverse possession, there is no other version, which could value consideration. Even though a plea has been taken by the defendants that the very same property was given as Varakatnam during the time of marriage in the year 1950, however, there is absolutely no plausible, acceptable and valid evidence or material in support, especially, when the defendants admits the title of the plaintiff and raised an unsupported plea and unproved version of Varakatnam and falls back to the plea of adverse possession. Apart from lack of any merit in all these pleas, there is also no evidence worth consideration in favour of the appellant herein. In the circumstances, having perused the entire evidence from both sides and also the documents filed in support, we are in entire agreement with the findings arrived by the trial Court and do not find any justification nor any warrant to interfere with the findings of the trial Court or to vary with them. There are no merits in the appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) _________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD,J) Dated:31-01-2011 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD P.D Judgment in A.S.No.766 of 1998 & Tr.A.S.No.1495 of 1991 Posted under the caption “for Judgment” on 31-01-2011 Circulated to Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad for perusal. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD A.S.No.766 of 1998 & Tr.A.S.No.1495 of 1991 Dated: -01-2011