C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT in OS No. 22 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad, (which was originally instituted as OS No. 58 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the district Munsif, Adilabad) is the appellant.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the suit for declaration of his title to plot bearing municipal No3-2-29/ measuring 81 x 60 at Chotathalab locality in Adilabad, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended in the plaint, which hereinafter would be called the suit land and for possession thereof after dismantling the huts therein and for profits, past and future, alleging that he purchased the suit land from the appellant for Rs. 3,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 7-3-1969 and was put in possession thereof on that date, subsequently appellant filed OS No. 20 of 1977 in the Court of the District Munsif adilabad, seeking reconveyance of the suit land in his favour on the basis that the sale deed dated 7-3-1969 executed in his favour in respect of the suit land is only a nominal one and obtained an ex parte temporary injunction restraining him from interfering with the alleged possession of the appellant over the suit land, and under the guise of the said temporary injunction, appellant, without obtaining permission from the municipality, constructed a hut in the suit land. The said OS No. 20 of 1977 was dismissed after trial. The decree of dismissal was confirmed in appeal by the district Court in AS No. 15 of 1979, but even then appellant has been continuing in possession of the suit land. Hence, the suit. Appellant filed his written statement contending that the sale deed relied on by the respondent is nominal and that respondent was never put in possession of the suit land, and that he, in his capacity as the owner of the suit land, raised the hut therein but not under the guise of the order of injunction obtained by him and since he is always ready and willing to repay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- borrowed by him from the respondent, respondent is not entitled to any relief. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed as many as 9 issues for trial. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked exs. Al to A22. On his behalf appellant examined himself and 2 witnesses as DWs. 1 to 3, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. The trial Court held that the sale deed dated 7-3-1969 executed by the appellant in favour of respondent in respect of the suit land (Ex. Al) is true and was intended to be acted upon, and that the respondent was put in possession of the suit land and that the hut in the suit was not in existence by the date of filing of the suit os No. 20 of 1977, that the suit land is not the ancestral and joint family property of the appellant and his sons, and that the sons of the appellant are not necessary parties to the suit, that the findings in OS No. 20 of 1977 operate as resjudicata, and passed a decree in favour of the respondent. Hence the appeal.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to the declaration and consequential relief of possession sought?

( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex. Al is a sham and nominal transaction and was never intended to be acted upon and possession of the suit land was never delivered to the respondent and since the question as to who is in possession of the suit land by the date of filing of OS No. 20 of 1977 was not necessary for deciding the said suit filed for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the findings in OS No. 20 of 1977 do not operate as res judicata in this case, and in any event since appellant has been in possession of the suit for a period of over 12 years prior to 1977 appellant perfected his title to the suit land by adverse possession and so in view of Section 27 and Articles 58 and 64 of the Limitation act, respondent is not entitled to any relief.

( 5 ) THE contention of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document