B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 372 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nizamabad. The respondents were the defendants therein. They litigated over the plaint schedule property, a plot bearing No. 51 with an extent of 355. 55 square yards situated at Nizamabad, to be referred to as "the suit plot". The plaintiffs sought for the relief in the suit for declaration of their title to the suit plot and for possession of the same from defendant No. 1 by evicting him and for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made by defendant No. 1 thereon. The suit was resisted by the. , defendants. The parties went to trial on the following issues : 1. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the declaration that they are owners of the suit plot, each having half share in it ? 2. Is D1 liable for eviction from the suit plot? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the delivery of possession ? 4. Is Dl liable for mandatory injunction, to demolish the construction made by him in the suit plot ? 5. To what relief ?the trial brought in both the oral and documentary evidence, wherein the plaintiffs were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and six other witnesses as per PWs. 3 to 8 respectively and defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW2 and seven witnesses as per DW1, DWs. 3 to 8 respectively by way of oral evidence and Exs. A1 to A10 for the plaintiffs and Exs. B1 to B31 (a) for the defendants were marked by way of documentary evidence. After hearing both the sides and with such materials the learned District Munsif held issues 1 to 4 in the affirmative and consequently, decreed the suit on 17-10-1989 as prayed, however, with a direction to the plaintiffs to pay Rs. 20,000. 00 to defendant No. 1 on or before 1-12-1989 and costs were also ordered in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved by that, defendant No. 1 took the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Nizamabad in A. S. No. 9 of 1990, wherein after hearing both the sides and with the same materials before him, the learned District Judge set aside the findings of the learned District Munsif as above and consequently, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs asking the parties to bear their respective costs. Aggrieved by such a decision, this appeal is filed.

( 2 ) AT the stage of admission only, having found that the appeal involved certain questions of law to be determined, after a notice to the respondent the appeal was admitted to consider the following questions of law : 1. Whether the suit property was duly transferred to Seshagiri Rao by defendant No. 2-Society; if so, whether Seshagiri Rao acquired any vested right or conditional right to the suit property by virtue of such a transfer by the 2nd defendant-Society ? 2. Whether Suryanarayana, who claims to be the legal representative of Seshagiri Rao, acquired any right or title to the suit property on the death of Seshagiri Rao and by virtue of the Will-Ex. B20? 3. Whether the transfer of the suit property by the 2nd defendant in favour of Srinivasa Rao on the death of Seshagiri Rao is legal and valid and whether it divested Seshagiri Rao of any right if he had acquired the suit property during his life time ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs acquired valid title to the suit property through Srinivasa Rao by virtue of the sale deeds-Exs. A2 and A3 ? 5. What is the effect of Sections 6, 54 and 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ? 6. What is the effect of Secyions 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, read with Section 54 (2nd limb) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 7. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Nizamabad, in the appeal interfering with the findings of the learned trial Judge, is sustainable in law ? 8 (a) Whether the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge deserves to be set aside ? (b) If so, to what extent ?during the course of the arguments, Sri T. V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document