IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.357 of 1997 Between: Aravabhoomi Krishnamma ..... Appellant AND Aravabhoomi Chandrasekhara Reddy .....Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Ravindranath Reddy The Court made the following : Judgment: This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 19-02-1997, in A.S.No.30 of 1991, on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Gudur, whereby judgment and decree, dated 30th September, 1991, in O.S.No.196 of 1984, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Sullurpet, has been reversed. The defendant is the appellant and plaintiff is the respondent. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.196 of 1984, for recovery of possession over an extent of Ac.0-60 cents of land in Survey No.251/8 of Karijatha Village, Sullurpet Taluk, Nellore District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that one Dodla Subba Reddy was the original owner of an extent of 44 acres of land; that he had three daughters by name Aravabhoomi Kasemma, Aravabhoomi Krishnavenamma and Kalathuru Rukminamma and that he executed Ex.A.2- Settlement Deed, dated 02-06-1948, and registered the said land in favour of his three daughters and his brother-in-law viz., Aravabhoomi Venkata Krishna Reddy (for short ‘AVK.Reddy’). It is the further case of the plaintiff that his mother Aravabhoomi Kasemma is the first daughter, and defendant is the second daughter, of the said Dodla Subba Reddy. He pleaded that about 30 years after Ex.A.2- Settlement Deed was executed by the original owner- late Dodla Subba Reddy, there was an oral partition among all the three daughters and AVK.Reddy; that in the said partition, the suit property fell to the share of AVK.Reddy and that his son viz., Mastan Reddy, who succeeded to the suit property after his father’s demise, sold the same to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1- registered sale deed on 17-09-1981. The plaintiff has, earlier, filed O.S.No.67 of 1982, alleging that the defendant was interfering with his possession over the suit property, and obtained temporary injunction. The said injunction order was vacated, by the trial Court, on 22-09- 1982, on the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the said suit was withdrawn and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit. According to her, the suit property never fell to the share of AVK.Reddy, and therefore, the plaintiff did not derive any title thereon. It is her further case that the suit property fell to her share and that she had been in possession thereof. Alternatively, she has contended that she has been in possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the defendant for over a statutory period and that thereby, she has perfected her title thereon, by adverse possession. On the basis of the rival pleas, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1.Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property? 2.Whether the defendant has perfected her right over the suit schedule property by adverse possession? 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the plaint schedule property? 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits? 5.Whether there is no cause of action? 6.Whether the defendant is entitled to exemplary costs under Section 35-A C.P.C.P.34? 7.To what relief?” In support of the plaintiff’s case, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and his neighbour as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.48. On behalf of the defendant, she got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.17. The trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, held all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The trial Court found that the plaintiff did not establish his title or possession over the suit property, and that the defendant perfected her title thereon by adverse possession. The defendant carried the matter in appeal viz., A.S.No.30 of 1991, before the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Gudur, which after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal, by decreeing the suit. The lower appellate Court, on the basis of the documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff has proved his title and that the evidence adduced by him also established his possession. At the hearing, Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the defendant, submitted that the lower appellate Court committed a serious error of law in reversing the findings of the trial Court, without properly looking into the documents, on which reliance was placed by the trial Court, and holding that the plaintiff established his possession over the suit property. According to the learned Counsel, the plaintiff failed to establish that patta No.66, which fell to the share of his predecessor in title under Ex.A.2- Settlement Deed, is correlated to patta No.165, which constitutes the suit property, and therefore, the lower appellate Court Court ought not to have upheld the plaintiff’s title thereon. The learned Counsel further argued that the trial Court, on the basis of Exs.B.1 to B.17- copies of revenue record, rightly held that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and thereby, she perfected her title by adverse possession and that therefore, the lower appellate Court committed an error in reversing the well-considered finding of the trial Court. Opposing the above contentions, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the evidence on record is very clear to the effect that the suit property fell to the share of AVK.Reddy; that as the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed from Mastan Reddy, who is the son of AVK.Reddy, the title came to be vested in the plaintiff and that the same was rightly upheld by the lower appellate Court. As regards the possession, the learned Counsel submitted that in the face of the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, which was not properly appreciated by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit property and that, in any event, the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court, being based on appreciation of evidence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. In the Second Appeal, the appellant framed the following substantial questions of law: “a. The appellate Court has not taken into consideration, the evidence produced by the appellant and considered by the trial Court and reversed judgment solely on the basis of the evidence produced on behalf of the respondent. b. The lower appellate Court’s finding of title in favour of the respondent is opposed to law and not based on evidence on record. c. The finding of the lower appellate Court on the question of adverse possession is not only opposed to principles of law and evidence on record but also it is opposed to pleadings. d. The judgment and decree of the lower Court is based on some incorrect statements regarding the contents of the documents. e. The lower appellate Court ought to have seen that the written statement of the appellant in the suit was not taken into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has raised this plea of adverse possession. f. The lower appellate Court failed to consider the settlement deed and subsequent partition, which are the documents of title. g. The lower appellate Court ought to have seen that the respondent’s vendor has no right to sell the suit property to respondent.” In this case, the trial Court declined to place reliance on the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff mainly on the ground that there are certain inconsistencies therein. Before the lower appellate Court, the learned Counsel for the defendant admitted that, by mistake, the suit property was included in patta No.165, which stood in the name of AVK.Reddy, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. There is, thus, a clear admission made by the defendant through his counsel that the suit property is included in patta No.165. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that in Ex.A.2-settlement deed, the properties allotted to the four members of the donor’s family were described in patta Nos.8, 9, 10, 65 and 66 and that the suit property was part of patta No.66. In his evidence, given as P.W.1, the plaintiff specifically deposed that Exs.A.15 to A.18 pertain to 10(1) accounts and they contain patta numbers as 162, 163, 164 and 165 and that the suit property is included in 165. The defendant has neither made any suggestion to PW.1 that the suit property was not included in patta No.165 nor adduced any evidence in support thereof. Thus, though there is no direct correlation between patta Nos.66 and 165, the evidence on record, including the confession made before the lower appellate Court on behalf of the defendant, clearly proves that the suit property was included in patta No.165, which admittedly stood in the name of AVK.Reddy. The lower appellate Court held that as admittedly, the patta stood in the name of AVK.Reddy, the petitioner derived title through the sale deed executed by the former’s son- Mastan Reddy. In my opinion, this finding of the lower appellate Court is based on proper evidence available on record. Thus, the plaintiff’s title over the suit property stands established. Coming to the claim of the defendant that she has perfected her title by adverse possession, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, a person, who pleads title in himself, cannot be permitted to set up the plea of adverse possession because they are mutually exclusive. In the case of adverse possession, the essential requirement of animus possidendi, i.e., holding the property adverse to the interest of the true owner, is sine qua non to succeed. The defendant, however, has advanced the inconsistent pleas of ownership and title over the suit property on the one hand and adverse possession thereon on the other hand. However, both the Courts below have not spared any attention to this aspect and the lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of adverse possession, by placing heavy reliance on the documentary evidence such as Exs.A.7 to 18, A.27, 45 to 47- certified copies of No.2 adangals for various faslis, Ex.A.32- pattadar pass book and several other records produced by the plaintiff. It is, no doubt, true that the defendant also filed Ex.B.1- pattadar passbook and Exs.B.2 to B.9- revenue receipts apart from certified copies of No.2 adangals marked as Exs.B.10 to 14. But, on an appreciation of the documentary evidence, the lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial Court regarding possession. The law is well settled that where the Court below appreciates the evidence and arrives at a conclusion, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot reverse the judgment merely because, on re-appreciation of evidence, it is possible to arrive at a different conclusion from the one reached by the lower Court. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi[1], the Supreme Court held that where a finding of fact is arrived at by the lower Court, such a finding is not open to further scrutiny by the High Court or Supreme Court and that even if, on appreciation of evidence, a mistaken inference, from the documents, is drawn by the lower Court, nevertheless, the same is no less a finding of fact. Unless the documents are misconstrued to such an extent that it constitutes perversity, this Court cannot not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact and the conclusions drawn therefrom. Having given my earnest consideration, I am of the opinion that this case does not fall in the category of cases, where the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate Court is, palpably, incorrect, or the findings arrived at by it are based on no evidence. The lower appellate Court has taken a view, which, on the evidence on record, is a possible view and this Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and record its own finding thereon. The grounds raised by the appellant, in my view, do not constitute substantial questions of law for interference by this Court. For the abovementioned reasons, the Second Appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25th February, 2010 lur [1] AIR 1960 SC 100