IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1576 of 1994 Between: Azeemkhan … Appellant And: Safia Begum & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1576 of 1994 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.1994 in OS No.33 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Adilabad, wherein, the said suit filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed suit for declaration of title in respect of Ac.11.02 guntas situated in Sy.No.26 in Yenka village, Utnoor Mandal and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant/plaintiff herein specifically based his claim of title over the Will dated 07.04.1987 executed by one Yunus Khan, father of the defendants. The respondents/defendants denied the execution of the Will by their father Yunuskhan and contended that the plaintiff in collusion with Ismail Khan, Nasrullahkhan, Sarfarazkhan and others, created a false Will with a view to grab the suit land. The defendants specifically pleaded that the alleged Will is not genuine. On the other hand, they contended that Yusufkhan executed registered Will dated 30.12.1977 bequeathing the suit land in favour of defendants 1 and 4 and by virtue of the said Will, the defendants 1 and 4 became absolutely entitled for the suit land. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction? 3. To what relief? 5. It is to be noted that the suit is filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction respect of the suit land. Though the plaintiff has put forward the Will dated 07.04.1987 as basis for his claim of title over the suit land and though the defendants have repudiated the said Will and they have put forward another Will dated 30.12.1977 said to have been executed by the same testator Yusufkhan in support of their claim, the trial Court has not chosen to frame any issue pertaining to either of the two Wills propounded by the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial Court has not framed any issue pertaining to the relief of declaration of title prayed for by the plaintiff and confined the issue only to the aspect of possession and the relief of permanent injunction. The trial Court however recorded finding to the effect that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to remove the suspicion regarding the execution of Ex.A.1 Will and it follows that Ex.A.1 cannot be held to be genuine document and therefore, the possession of the plaintiff, even if true, cannot be held to be lawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff was held not entitled either for injunction or for declaration prayed for. Recording of such a finding pertaining to the Will Ex.A.1 without there being any specific issue in that regard and rejection of the relief for declaration of title without any issue framed in that regard and without proper adjudication of such issue is totally unwarranted. 6. It is well settled that all the material issues arising from the pleadings of both parties on account of specific assertion made by one party and denial of the same by other pertaining to the material facts, shall be necessarily be framed for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and findings have to be recorded on such issues after considering the evidence adduced by the parties regarding the same. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is vitiated on account of the omission to frame specific issue pertaining to the two Wills propounded by the respective parties and recording of findings without there being proper issues. 7. In the circumstances, it is, therefore considered just and necessary that the matter be remanded to the trial Court for framing necessary and appropriate issues arising from the pleadings, particularly pertaining to the two Wills propounded by the plaintiff and defendants and to record specific findings thereon. The learned counsel appearing for both parties also agreed for such a course. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to both parties to adduce any further evidence they may intend to let in and dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1989, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.10.2010 bss