THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.500 OF 1995 JUDGMENT:- The defendants in O.S.No.212 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Bapatla are the appellants herein. The suit was one filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property, which is an extent of Ac.0.16 cents of land. According to the case of the plaintiff, the property belonged to one Immadisetti Appaiah and it was succeeded by his wife Hanumayamma with limited rights. Subsequently, Hanumayamma surrendered her life estate in favour of Immadisetti Nagaiah, the brother of her husband, by a document dated 30-03-1955. The first defendant is the son of I.Nagaiah. The plaintiff’s father purchased the suit schedule property and some other property from I.Nagaiah on 30-03-1955 and bequeathed the same to the plaintiff as per the will dated 07-06-1976. The plaintiff has, therefore, become absolute owner of the property. As the defendants are trying to cause interference, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. The defendants contended that Hanumayamma did not surrender her life estate in favour of I.Nagaiah and she has become absolute owner of the property after the death of Appaiah. The will set up by the plaintiff is not true. The defendants further contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have succeeded to the property of Hanumayamma as 3rd defendant was brought up by Appaiah and Hanumayamma and the said 2nd defendant lived as an illatom son-in-law, therefore, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court after consideration of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. As against that A.S.No.9 of 1986 was preferred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla, who has allowed the appeal and granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that, the defendants have preferred the Second Appeal and it was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether a female Hindu cannot be deprived of the benefits of Sec. 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. When she continues to be in possession and held the property at the time of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of the surrender without possession in favour of the then revisioner and such a surrender would not divest a Hindu widow of her limited estate (b) Whether the lower Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the lower Court on the basis of Ex.A.1. The surrender deed alleged to have been executed by Hanumayamma in favour of single reversioner without consent of other reversioners is null and void and is not binding on the reversioners existing on the date of the death of the limited estate holder according to Hindu Law and hence the plaintiffs have no right to schedule property. (c) Whether late Hanumayamma perfected her title by adverse possession by her continuous possession from 1955 to 1979 by paying Municipal taxes in her own name and the said possession is continued by D.2 and D.3 and are entitled to blame continuous possession on principles of tagging on and the plaintiffs’ rights if any have become extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. (d) Whether the sale deed Ex.A.2 executed by one of the reversioner as in pursuance of the alleged surrender is void under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act as a Hindu reversioner has no right or interest are in presentee until it vests in him on her death and he has nothing to assign or transfer to his heirs in any manner. There is no dispute about the fact that the property originally belonged to Appaiah and the question for determination is whether Hanumayamma has got absolute rights in the property or limited rights and as to whether the surrender of the rights as claimed by the plaintiff in favour of I.Nagaiah and the consequent sale by I.Nagaiah to the father of the plaintiff is valid or not. Evidently, the suit was filed for injunction and incidental question of title is considered by the courts below. It is brought to the notice of this court while the Second Appeal is pending, the plaintiff in the suit has filed O.S.No.103 of 2002 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla for declaration of title and possession of the property. Consequently, it is contended by the counsel for the appellants that when once the plaintiff claims possession of the property, the relief of injunction granted by the first appellate court is not tenable and appeal has to be allowed. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contends that though the suit was filed for declaration of title and possession, the allegations in the petition does not show any dispossession and consequently the suit is of a different nature. It is to be mentioned that the suit filed subsequently is a comprehensive suit, which determines the rights of the parties in suit schedule property. Though the specific allegation is not made in the plaint about dispossession, the very nature of the suit for possession presupposes that the person is not in possession of the property. Even if otherwise, it is to be concluded that the plaintiff by way of abundant caution has filed the suit for declaration of title and possession apprehending that the judgment in the Second Appeal may be against the plaintiff, still the court has to consider whether there was dispossession or not. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the case and without giving any finality to the findings given by the courts below in the suit, the Second Appeal is allowed, and the suit O.S.No.212 of 1980 is remanded to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla to be tried along with O.S.No.103 of 2002. Since it is a comprehensive suit, the court below shall consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to the property and if the court has come to a conclusion that there was no dispossession, it can consider the relief of injunction and whether there was dispossession, it can consider the relief of possession. The court below is directed to dispose of both the cases within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further, it is also represented that the first respondent died and legal representatives are brought on record. If for any reason any of the legal representatives are not brought on record, the parties are at liberty to file the same before the court. No costs. _____________________​__ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 31-08-2012 TSNR