THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.37 and 69 of 2010 Dated:19.02.2010 Between: Kamisetti Subba Rao …Appellant and Ganapa Yedukondala Venkataramana Rao, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.37 and 69 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two second appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 21.08.2009 delivered by the Court of the Additional District Judge (Family Court), West Godavari District, Eluru, in A.S.Nos.26 and 78 of 2005. A.S.No.26 of 2005 was filed by respondents herein against O.S.No.171 of 1994 which was filed by the appellant herein. A.S.No.78 of 2005 was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein against O.S.No.139 of 2000 which was filed by themselves as plaintiffs. The dispute in these appeals is in respect of agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents in R.S.No.1171/2C situated at Guravaigudem Village of T.Narasapuram Mandal in West Godavari District (hereafter called, schedule property). Be it noted, the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, passed the judgment in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. In his suit filed for declaration of title and declaration that the settlement deed and sale deeds executed by the first respondent in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are null and void and for permanent injunction, the appellant alleged as follows. The suit schedule land is a Government land. He migrated to Guravaigudem twenty five years prior to filing the suit. He encroached on the schedule land and constructed house. Recognizing his possession the Government issued patta after effecting subdivision. He also obtained pattadar pass books and became absolute owner. Respondent No.1 and his brother Veerabalendrudu who were related to Seeta Mahalakshmi were permitted to raise sheds on the schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents. Seeta Mahalakshmi executed registered sale deed and settlement deed on 30.04.1993 in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In addition, on 26.04.1993 the husband of Seeta Mahalakshmi executed sale deed in favour of the first respondent and a settlement deed on 30.04.1993 in favour of Veerabalendrudu. After death of Veerabalendrudu his legal heirs defendant Nos.4 to 6 inherited the properties including schedule property. These two sale deeds are void and the respondents had no right except as licencees. The suit was opposed by the respondents by raising different pleas which are similar to the pleas they raised in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein in O.S.No.139 of 2000 for declaration of title that the first respondent is absolute owner of item No.1 and for consequential injunction. The case of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and other respondents claiming through them is that item 1 was purchased by the first respondent in 1967 to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents out of Acs.4.34 cents for Rs.400/- from the second respondent. He constructed a thatched house on the southern side. He is paying tax to Gram Panchayat, Guravaigudem, from 01.04.1969 and raised two guava trees and one neem tree thereon. Item 2 of plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.11 cents out of Acs.4.34 cents in R.S.No.117/2 was gifted by Seetha Mahalakshmi to Veerabalendrudu husband of second respondent. Since then the second respondent is in possession without any interruption. It was also alleged that the plaint schedule properties items 1 and 2 originally belong to Seetha Mahalakshmi who inherited from her grandfather Bandreddi Krishnaiah. But by mistake the name of the appellant was recorded in R.S.No.117/2C by revenue authorities and he is making a false claim. O.S.No.171 of 1994 filed by the appellant and O.S.No.139 of 2000 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 were clubbed and joint trial was conducted. The appellant gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A32. Seetha Mahalakshmi, first defendant in O.S.No.171 of 1994 (since deceased), gave evidence as D.W.1, and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked. The appellant examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and respondents examined D.Ws.2 to 5. On consideration of the evidence, the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant proved his possession for thirty two years, that Seetha Mahalakshmi and respondent No.1 had knowledge of such possession, and therefore, the appellant proved title by adverse possession. The Court below also came to conclusion that the sales by D.Ws.1 and 2 are null and void and do not confer any rights on respondent No.1 herein and Veerabalendrudu husband of second respondent. Aggrieved by the same respondents filed appeals before the lower appellate Court as noticed hereinabove. On reappreciation, the first appellate Court reversed the findings and held that the appellant is joint pattadar of petition schedule land, that he failed to prove his possession, that the first respondent is absolute owner of petition schedule property. The appellant was injuncted from interfering with the possession of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals submits that the first appellate Court failed to consider the crucial documents and the evidence of D.W.1 and 2 and failed to record any findings on the question of adverse possession. He nextly contends that the appellant proved his possession from 1969 onwards which is also corroborated by pattadar pass books – Ex.A3, and other revenue records Exs.A4 to A10, and therefore the suit filed by the respondents in 2000 is barred by limitation. Lastly he contends that D.Ws.1 and 2 themselves admitted the possession of the appellant, and therefore, the plea of adverse possession stands proved. The question of adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. The appellate Court found the plaintiff’s document Ex.A1 as a joint patta and that he failed to prove that he comes within the purview of Andhra Pradesh Splitting of Joint Pattas Act, 1965. He also relied on evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to come to the conclusion that D.W.1 was the owner of the property which was alienated in favour of the first respondent and husband of second respondent. The criticism by the learned Counsel that the first appellate Court failed to consider all the documents is uncharitable. First appellate Court framed proper points for consideration, reexamined evidence and gave findings in favour of the respondents. These findings are mainly based on appreciation of the evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court the question of law would not arise for consideration in these appeals. The Second Appeals are therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .02.2010 vs