THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN SECOND APPEAL No.793 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.69 of 2009 dated 07.12.2010 passed by the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.47 of 2004 dated 29.06.2009 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri. Facts, to the extent relevant, are that the appellants’ father and the husband of the third respondent are brothers. It was the case of the appellants, before the Trial Court, that an oral partition of the joint family took place 50 years prior to the filing of the suit; the suit schedule property fell to the share of the appellants’ father; 20 years thereafter, partition took place between the third respondent’s husband and other brothers (other than the appellants’ father); pursuant thereto, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the third respondent’s husband; thereafter, in the year 1983, the third respondent’s husband had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants’ father; O.S.No.379 of 1987 was filed by the third respondent’s husband to have the said sale deed cancelled; the suit in O.S.No.379 of 1987 was decreed by the Trial Court on 26.06.1991; and, since no execution petition was filed by the third respondent’s husband for more than 12 years thereafter, the present suit in O.S.No.47 of 2004 was filed by the appellants herein for declaration of title based on adverse possession. The Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, by his judgment in O.S.No.47 of 2004 dated 29.06.2009, held that the sale deed executed on 15.09.1983 was null and void; there was no need to initiate execution proceedings when the Court, in its judgment, in O.S.No.379 of 1987, had declared the sale deed to be a nullity; it was automatically binding on the parties; non- initiation of execution proceedings would not result in the decree becoming nonest; the judgment in O.S.No.379 of 1987 had attained finality; it was, therefore, binding on the appellants; while the appellants in one breath claim that they were joint owners and the suit schedule property fell to their share, in another breath they contended that they had been in possession of the suit land to the exclusive knowledge of the respondents-defendants, and they had perfected their title; and, in view of two different and inconsistent pleas taken by the appellants’ herein, they were not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. In appeal, the learned VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty, by his judgment in A.S.No.69 of 2009 dated 07.12.2010, held that the judgment in O.S.No.379 of 1987 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri had become final; the registered sale deed said to have been executed by the husband of the third respondent, in favour of the appellants’ father, was declared as null and void in the said suit; the contention based on Rule 149 of the Civil Rules of Practice was misconceived in as much as the said rule did not require a party to cause a copy of the decree or order to be forwarded to the Registrar; it was the duty of the Court to cause a copy of the decree or order to be forwarded to the registering officer; the inconsistent stands taken by the appellants did not entitle them to the decree sought for; and the elaborate and well-considered judgment of the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri did not warrant interference in appeal. Before this Court Sri M.Subba Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellants, would reiterate the very same submissions and contend that, since the appellants had been in possession for the past several decades and in as much as no execution proceedings had been initiated by the third respondent pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.379 of 1987 within a period of 12 years, the third respondent could not rely on the said decree and seek eviction of the appellants from the suit schedule property; and the appellants would be entitled for declaration of title based on adverse possession. As noted hereinabove, the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, in his judgment in O.S.No.47 of 2004 dated 29.06.2009, held that the sale deed executed by the third respondent’s husband in September, 1983 was a nullity; and, as such, nothing remained to be executed by the third respondent. As held by the Appellate Court, Rule 149 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not cast any obligation on a party to the proceedings to forward a copy of the decree to the registering authority, and the said rule places the obligation on the Court, which passed the decree. A party to the suit cannot, therefore, be faulted in not forwarding a copy of the decree to the registering authority. With regards the appellants’ claim of adverse possession, based on their longstanding possession which is to the knowledge of all the respondents, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the inconsistent stands taken by the appellants’ disentitled them from claiming the said relief. While, on the one hand, they contended that there was an oral partition between their father and the third respondent’s husband, they also placed reliance on the sale deed executed in September, 1983, and the husband of the third respondent’s failure to have the decree executed as a justification for their being entitled to a declaration of title based on adverse possession. The findings of both the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity, much less, does a substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.07.2011 usd