JUDGMENT

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.

2. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No.232 of 1979 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Rajmundry. The said suit was filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking possession of suit property and mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 13.9.1988 and the decree was affirmed by the High Court on 27.9.2006.

3. The case of respondent-plaintiff in the plaint was that she is the owner of the suit schedule property (Survey No.100 of Rajanagaram Village), having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 10.4.1957 from the previous owners Sathyanarayana Rao and Suryaprakash Rao represented by their mother Varalakshmamma. She paid the entire consideration of Rs.10000/- and obtained possession of the land from her vendors. The appellant-defendant, who is her close relative (son-in-law of her husbands brother) offered to manage the suit land by identifying suitable persons to cultivate the said land. The suit land was given on lease by the plaintiff to various persons suggested by the defendant, from time to time. In the year 1971, the defendant offered that he himself will take the suit land on lease on an annual rent of 40 bags of paddy. The plaintiff agreed and accordingly, from 1971 onwards, defendant was cultivating the land. He was delivering 40 bags of paddy every year as rent, till Sankranti, 1978. He did not pay the rent by way of share in produce, due on Sankranti, 1979. Therefore, she issued a registered notice dated 12.7.1979 through her counsel, demanding payment of agreed rent and possession of the land. The defendant issued a reply dated 13.7.1979 alleging that he was not the tenant of plaintiff; that he had occupied the land in the year 1957 and had been cultivating the land ever since then in his own right; and therefore, the question of delivering possession to the plaintiff did not arise. As the defendant claimed ownership and denied being a cultivating tenant under the plaintiff, the plaintiff treated the defendant to be a trespasser from the date of such reply notice. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession of the suit schedule land and consequential reliefs.

4. The defendant filed a written statement claiming that he was occupying and cultivating the land from 1957 and had perfected his title by adverse possession. He contended that the plaintiff-respondent was never in possession and the sale deed dated 10.4.1957 in her favour was a nominal deed, that one Mahalaxmamma (a common relative) had paid the sale consideration and was the true owner, and that plaintiff had admitted this position in an agreement dated 18.4.1959 executed by her in favour of Mahalaxmamma and her husband. The defendant also contended that the suit was not maintainable for two reasons : (i) The plaintiff had stated in the plaint that she had leased the land to defendant and the relationship between them as that of landlord and cultivating tenant; and therefore, she ought to have filed an eviction petition before the Special Officer (Tenancy Court) under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 (`Act for short) and civil court had no jurisdiction. (ii) A mere suit for possession was not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration, as he had disputed her title to the suit property.

5. The court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession; whether the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession; whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits (damages for wrongful occupation); whether the plaintiff had executed an agreement dated 18.4.1959 admitting that the sale deed dated 10.4.1957 in her favour was a nominal document; whether the said agreement dated 18.4.1959 put forth by defendant was a forged document; and to what relief plaintiff was entitled. No issue was framed about tenancy or jurisdiction of the court.

6. After considering the evidence - oral and documentary, the trial court by j