C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE sole plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The appellant filed the suit for partition and separate possession of a 1/9th share in the suit properties and for permanent injunction against defendants 6 to 9, who are the contesting defendants. Subsequently, the plaint was got amended so as to claim the relief of possession also as against defendants 6 to 9.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property consisting of two items with a total extent of Ac. 9-15 guntas is the ancestral joint family property belonging to plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. There are altogether three branches, which are entitled to the property. Plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the first defendant. They belong to one branch. The 3rd defendant belongs to the 2nd branch. Defendants 4 and 5 belonged to the 3rd branch. Each branch is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit property. Out of the 1/3rd share held by the first defendant s branch, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd i. e. , he is entitled to a 1/9th share in the suit property. As the 5th defendant died during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 10 to 12.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 5 supported the case of the plaintiff. The defendants 6 to 9 only contested the suit contending that the entire suit property was sold by the heads of the three branches in favour of one Singireddi jogi Reddy under an agreement of sale dated 15-7-1956 (Ex. B-25), that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/- was paid by the vendee at the time of the agreement and possession of the property was also delivered to him. The said Singireddi Jogi reddy purchased the property for the benefit of a mission which was subsequently got registered as "diecesion society". Subsequently a registered sale deed dated 10-11-1966 (Ex. B-17) was duly executed by the vendors in favour of defendants 8 and 9 on behalf of the diecesion Society. Thus, according to the contesting defendants, the suit property has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Diecesion Society and its representatives right from 15-7-1956 onwards and defendants 6 to 9, therefore, perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession also.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff impeached the sale on the ground that it is not justified either by legal necessity or benefit to the Estate. Though there was no specific plea to that effect in the plaint, the Plaintiff also contended that the alleged sale was null and void and hit by Section 47 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 as it was made without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority.

( 5 ) AFTER framing a number of issues and after a protracted trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs holding that exs. B-25 and B-17 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff. On appeal, the appellate Court held that Exs. B-25 and B-17 are void being in contravention of Section 47 of the said Act. The appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that defendants 6 to 9 have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession and the suit is barred by limitation. On the said findings, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the trial court.

( 6 ) THE following substantial questions of law have been formulated in the memorandum of Grounds, on the basis of which the Second Appeal has been admitted: (A) Whether the finding given by the trial Court that the suit is not barred by time, that defendants 6 to 9 have not perfected their title by adverse possession and that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable can be challenged by respondents without filing objections under Order 41 Rule 22 cpc? (B) Whether the plaintiff who was a minor at the time of Ex. B-17 sale deed is not entitled to file the suit merely because he was not conceived by the date of Ex. B-25? (C) Whether by execution of the agreement Ex. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document