THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.225 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The sole defendant in O.S.No.51 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle, is the appellant herein. He filed this second appeal aggrieved by the concurrent judgment rendered by the trial Court and the one rendered by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle in A.S.No.75 of 1998. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the lane, shown as ‘X Y D Z’ in the plaint plan. The husband of the respondent purchased an item of immovable property with thatched shed through a sale deed, dated 25.03.1965, marked as Ex.A3. It is stated that the husband of the respondent was working in Indian Army and taking advantage of the same, the father of the appellant has encroached into the land covered by Ex.A3 to an extent of 22 ½’ x 7’. The respondent stated that when a dispute was raised as regards the said encroachment before the Village elders, it was decided that the suit lane in question be permitted to be enjoyed by her. It was also pleaded that a cattle shed was constructed, providing access through the suit passage. Complaining interference by the appellant after partition between himself and his brother, the respondent filed the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 30.10.1992. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.75 of 1998 and that was dismissed on 05.02.1999. Hence, this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The plea urged by the appellant is that the respondent never claimed any right by way of transfer or succession to the suit schedule property and there was no basis for the trial Court to decree the suit. Other grounds are also urged. The respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that the suit schedule lane was given to her by the father of the appellant in lieu of the encroachment made into the property covered by Ex.A3 and at any rate, she perfected her title by way of adverse possession. Initially, the trial Court framed only one issue, touching upon the relief of perpetual injunction. Subsequently, additional issue was framed on the question of declaration of title. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1, plaint plan; Ex.A3, sale deed through which the husband of the respondent purchased the property; Ex.A2, link document; Ex.A4, the approved building plan; and Exs.A5 and A6 house tax receipts were marked. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 memorandum of partition, dated 04.08.1986, was marked. The report of the Commissioner was taken on record as Exs.C1 and C2. The suit was decreed and the Appeal filed against it was dismissed. It is, no doubt, true that the very basis for the respondent to lay the claim over the suit schedule property was an act of exchange between herself and the father of the appellant and that the transaction is not evidenced by any registered document. The fact, however, remains that the respondent proved her possession beyond any pale of doubt. This is one of the rare cases where the trial Court has not only appointed an Advocate Commissioner to cause local inspection, but also the learned Presiding Officer made a local inspection, by himself. It was found that the suit lane was separated from the property of the appellant by a brick wall and that the cattle shed constructed by the respondent does not have any other access, except the suit lane. The title of the respondent was upheld on the basis of her continuous adverse possession for a period exceeding 12 years. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2010 kdl