THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.716 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.41 of 1993 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property, comprising fairly large extents of land, buildings etc. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded by the appellants, are that, one Mr. Chinthamani Budan Sab had four sons, by names, Syed Usman, Syed Meah Sab, Syed Hussain @ Subedar Khan and Syed Meer and a daughter, by name, Saram bee. The husband of the appellant is said to be the son of Syed Meah Sab. Syed Meah Sab filed O.S.No.1017 of 1908 in the Court of District Munsif, Kadapa, against his brothers and sisters, for partition of the suit schedule properties therein. A compromise decree is said to have been passed, where under, each son of Chintamani Budan Sab was allotted 2/9th share and the daughter was allotted 1/9th share. The daughters of one of the sons, by name, Syed Usman, is said to have sold the suit schedule property in favour of Mr. Badurulla Khan, way back in the year 1938. That was preceded by Syed Usman executing a sale deed in respect of those properties, on 10.07.1913 in favour of his wife. The appellants contend that the decree in O.S.No.1017 of 1908 was never acted upon and series of transactions that have been taken place subsequent to, are not legally binding upon them. The respondents opposed the suit on several grounds. Through its judgment, dated 05.09.2005, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.8 of 2008 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Rayachoty. The appeal was dismissed. Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Courts below did not take into account, the fact that the property was never partitioned, though there exists a compromise decree, and that the suit ought to have been decreed. He contends that one of the reasons assigned by the Courts below, that none of the plaintiffs were examined, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that being the womenfolk Paradashin, the appellants did not depose as witnesses and the Courts below were not correct in dismissing the suit on the ground that none of the appellants have deposed as witnesses. The appellants claim absolute rights of ownership over the suit schedule property. For that purpose, the relief of declaration of title was prayed for. Even if one goes by the averments made in the plaint, it emerges that the suit schedule properties were subject matter of the decree in O.S.No.1017 of 1908 on the file of the District Munsif, Kadapa. Another plea of the appellant was that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have categorically held that possession of the appellants even if true, cannot be treated as adverse possession. One century later, the appellant contend that the said decree was not acted upon. It is just unbelievable. As evident from the execution of the will deed by one of the parties to the suit, way back in 1913, several transactions were ensued thereafter. The curious part of the matter is that the appellant did not seek the relief of setting aside the decree in O.S.No.1017 of 1908 or the sale deeds that came to be executed by the parties, who derived rights there from. The appellant cannot be permitted to doubt the validity or operation of a decree, which was passed about one century ago, that too, without seeking the relief of cancellation of the decree or sale deeds. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the second appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 10.08.2009 sj