C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two second app?als arise out of two cross-suits for permanent injunction filed by the parties against one another in respect of the self-same property. The only difference between the two suits is that whereas O. S. No. 80 of 1986 is in respect of the lands covered by Survey Nos. 74 and 89, the other suit O. S. No. 303 of 1990 is in respect of the lands covered by Survey no. 89 only. The two suits were tried together. Both the suits were filed on the basis of prior possession without setting up any claim of title, and attempts to interfere with such possession by the opposite party. However, in the course of the evidence, some attempt appears to have been made by both parties to make out title. But both parties mainly relied on the entries in the revenue records like Pahanis and land revenue receipts in proof of their possession.

( 2 ) ON a consideration ot the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court decreed O. S. No. 80 of 86 and dismissed O. S. No. 303 of 90. The trial Court decided the suits only on the basis of possession without going into the question of title and leaving it open to the parties to establish their title in separa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document