C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the 1st defendant in o. S. No. 3 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad. For the sake of convenience, I would refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for recovery of possession of 15 acres 7 guntas of land in s. No. 83 of Pipri village, Utnoor Taluq, hereinafter called the suit land from the defendants alleging that the suit property, which was allotted to his share during the partition between him and his brother, was being cultivated by him through coolies and that the 2nd defendant, who is the father of the 1st defendant who used to cultivate the suit land as a cooli had put the 1st defendant in possession thereof. After coming to know about the said fact, he demanded the 1st defendant to vacate the suit land and deliver the possession thereof to him, but the 1st defendant refused to do so and hence the suit.

( 3 ) 1st defendant filed his written statement contending that in the partition that was effected between the plaintiff and his brothers Govind Rao and another, the suit land was allotted to the share of Govind rao and that Govind Rao in exchange of the suit land, took land in S. No. 46 and 51 measuring 6 acres 11 guntas and 8 acres 12 guntas respectively of Devapur village from the 2nd defendant and during the partition between him and his father, the suit land was allotted to his share ad so plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of the suit land from him.

( 4 ) 2nd defendant remained ex parte.

( 5 ) BASING on the said pleadings, five issues were settled for trial by the trial court. In support of his case, plaintiff besides examining himself as P. W. 1 examined one Govind Rao as P. W. 2 and marked Ex. A-1. In support of his case, the 1st defendant examined himself as D. W. 1 and another witness as D. W. 2 and marked exs. B-1 to B-34. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, held on issues 2 and 3, which relate to the question whether the suit land was allotted to the share of Govind Rao and whether it was given in exchange to 2nd defendant in lieu of S. Nos. 46 and 51 of Devapur, against the 1st defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. On Issue No. 4, which relates to question whether the exchange (pleaded by the 1st defendant) is valid under the provisions of a. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer regulation, 1959 (hereinafter called the regulations ) held against the 1st defendant. On issue No. 1, which relates to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession, held in favour of the plaintiff, and on the basis of the findings on the other issues, on issue No. 5, which relates to result, decreed the suit against the 1st defendant with costs and dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant without costs. Hence this appeal by the 1st defendant.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the 1st defendant.

( 7 ) THE case in brief of the 1st defendant is that in the partition between the plaintiff and his brothers, the suit land was allotted to the share of plaintiff s brother Govind Rao and that Govind Rao exchanged the suit land with 2nd defendant and put the 2nd defendant in possession of the suit land after delivering possession of land in S. Nos. 46 and 51 of Devapur village to Govind Rao and that in the partition between him and his father, the 2nd defendant, the suit land was allotted to his share. So it is clear that 1st defendant is claiming title to the suit property by virtue of an exchange between his father and Govind Rao. 2nd defendant remained ex parte. 1st defendant did not examine 2nd defendant or Govind Rao to speak about the exchange pleaded by him. To prove the exchange between the 2nd defendant and Govind Rao, no document is produced by the 1st defendant. As per section 118 of Transfer of Property Act, exchange can be made only in the manner pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document