THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.926 OF 2011 .11.2011 Between: Kasina Indira, W/o.Veerabhadraprasad …Appellant AND Bokka Nagisetti, S/o.Lachanna And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.926 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff’s suit being O.S.No.165 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule property i.e., a small piece of land admeasuring Acs.0.04 (out of Acs.0.15 forming part of Acs.0.60) in S.No.67/3 situated at Nagaram Village in East Godavari District, was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.4.2006. The plaintiff’s appeal being A.S.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole was also dismissed on 09.7.2009. Against the concurring judgment, the plaintiff filed the instant appeal. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows. The plaintiff purchased suit schedule property from Molleti Lakshamma and the first defendant under registered sale deed dated 01.04.1969. She raised a thatched house and planted coconut trees in the suit schedule land as well as other extent of Acs.0.15. A portion thereof was leased out to the first defendant in 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.5/- and another portion was leased out to the father of defendants 3 and 4 in 1991 for a monthly rent of Rs.5/-. They executed lease deed on 01.04.1991 for a period of one year. They stopped paying rents from 1997 and plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 12.07.1997 demanding possession after vacating suit schedule property. The defendants raised dispute contending that the suit schedule property does not form part of the land purchased by the plaintiff under sale deed dated 01.04.1969 and that first defendant sold the property to defendants 2 and 3 under registered sale deed dated 30.09.1993. When the defendants denied the title, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession. The second defendant filed written statement. The same was adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 4. They contended that the first defendant and her mother-in-law sold only Acs.0.11 of land excluding suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.0.04; the husband of the first defendant constructed thatched house in 1951 and he was in possession ever since paying Panchayat taxes and that they never paid rent to the plaintiff and that even though the first defendant died during the pendency of the suit, her legal heirs were not brought on record. The first defendant died on 19.01.2000 and a Memo was filed by the plaintiff that there is no necessity to file LR petition. The trial Court framed seven issues. P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked for the plaintiff. Defendants examined seven witnesses and marked Exs.B.1 to B.16. In addition, X.1 to X.13 were also marked through witnesses. The trial Court on considering evidence, recorded the following findings. The possession of the suit schedule property was with the first defendant since 1957 to the knowledge of the original owner and subsequent purchasers. The first defendant was in possession of the property even before the plaintiff obtained sale deed in 1969. The possession of the first defendant was open, hostile and adverse to the possession of the plaintiff as well and therefore, she perfected her title by adverse possession. Though the plaint schedule property is part of Acs.0.15 purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1, the actual sale was in respect of Acs.0.11 and the plaintiff played fraud in obtaining Ex.A.1 for the entire extent of Acs.0.15. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The appellate Court framed five points for consideration and on reconsideration of the entire evidence, the first appellate Court held that the vendors of the plaintiff i.e., the first defendant, her mother-in-law had only life interest by virtue of settlement deed dated 05.09.1962 and therefore, they could not have validly alienated the property to the plaintiff. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. It is mainly contended that the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated by consideration of irrelevant evidence on the question of fraud allegedly played by the first defendant; the Courts below erroneously came to the conclusion that by proving the possession the first defendant discharged the burden that there is no fraud; and the first appellate Court committed error in reversing the finding of the trial Court on Ex.A.1 even though there were no cross-objections filed by the defendants. This Court has perused the Judgments of the Courts below thoroughly. The crucial issue was whether the plaintiff purchased the entire extent of Acs.0.15 under Ex.A.1. On this, both the Courts came to the conclusion that the first defendant had been in possession of the property from 1957 and what was intended to be sold by her, her mother-in-law was only Acs.0.11 excluding that portion of the land which was in her possession. This is a finding of fact, which does not warrant interference, even if two views are possible. Secondly, it was found that the vendor of the plaintiff had only life interest under settlement deed, and therefore, they could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, as found by the Courts below, the first defendant perfected her title by adverse possession, and therefore, the plaintiff could not get the decree for declaration of title and possession. These factual findings are based on evidence and the Courts below have given elaborate reasons in support of the inference drawn by them. The second appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .11.2011 Pln