THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL NO.714 OF 2010 29-07-2010 Between: P.Yesobu son of Venkaiah ..Appellant Vs. Ansari Danamma wife of J.D.Ansari …Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL NO.714 OF 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who is the defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The respondent filed the suit. The suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 04-11-2008 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.143 of 2008. The learned VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit by the judgment dated 01-04-2010. There against, the defendant has filed this Second Appeal. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The plaint averments are that the property belonged to the plaintiff’s mother Kotamma who succeeded to the property from her father Venkatesh. Kotamma was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. As the plaintiff took care of Kotamma, she executed, out of natural love and affection a registered gift settlement deed on 30-11-2006 settling the plaint schedule property in her (plaintiff’s) favour and since then she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment as absolute owner. In December 2006, the defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property and occupied the same and began questioning the plaintiff’s title and therefore the suit. According to the defendant, Kotamma had no title to the suit schedule property. He also denied the execution of the gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and his interference with the suit schedule property in December 2006. The defendant claimed that he was brought up by Venkatesh, the grand father of the plaintiff since the third day of his birth as his own mother had died shortly after delivery. The plaintiff’s mother Kotamma was given in marriage to one V.Isaac of Tammuluru Village. She deserted her husband and settled at Chenupalli Village with one T.Rosaiah and at the time of desertion she obtained two she- buffaloes and Rs.2000/- in cash from the defendant. The defendant also claimed to have performed the obsequies of his foster parents. The defendant was married to the plaintiff at the instance of Venkatesh, the foster father who is also the grandfather of the plaintiff. The plaintiff however deserted him and left the village and settled at Gujarat. The defendant continued in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He inherited the property through Venkatesh being the foster son. The defendant alternatively claimed title to the property by adverse possession on the basis of Exs.B-1 and B-2 pattadar pass book and title deeds whereunder the name of the defendant is claimed to be recorded as the title holder and on the basis of Exs.B-3 to B-9. The trial court while rejecting the defendant’s claim to title to the property by inheritance, declared that the defendant had established his title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession; that the plaintiff failed to establish her mother Kotamma’s possession and enjoyment earlier to the execution of Ex.A-1 or at any point of time during her life time; and that the plaintiff lost right to the suit schedule property on account of the defendant perfecting his title by adverse possession. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred A.S.143 of 2008. In allowing the appeal the lower appellate court held that the suit was filed in 2007 and Exs.B-1 and B-2, the pattedar passbook and title deed pass books were issued in favour of the defendant in 1998 and therefore they would not constitute evidence of adverse assertion of title by defendant for the requisite period of 12 years as contemplated under Section 65 of the Limitation Act,1963. With respect to Ex.B-3, copy of 10(1) account in respect of suit schedule property, the lower appellate court found that the name of the owner is reflected as Venkatesh, the admitted true and original owner of the property and therefore Ex.B-3 does not establish the claim of the defendant to adverse possession. With regard to Exs.B-4 to B-6, which are 1/B Account and No.3 Adangal, these documents reflect the name of one Guravaiah (the father of Venkatesh) as the holder of the property and therefore do not support the defendant’s claim to prescriptive title and assertion of adverse possession, for the requisite period. The lower appellate court held that Exs.B-5 to B-9 are copies of No.3 Adangal for the Fasli years 1404 to 1406, 1410 to 1412 and 1413 and 1415 and these do support the defendant’s claim of having perfected title to the property by adverse possession for the statutory period. On a cogent and critical analysis and reappreciation of the evidence on record, the lower appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish that he perfected title to the suit schedule property adverse to the plaintiff and hence allowed the appeal, by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. No question of law, no error in the application of law or perversity in the appreciation of evidence, is discernable warranting interference in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 29th JULY 2010 TSNR