LINGARAJA RATH,J, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of a reversing judgment of a learned single Judge of this court dismissing the suit brought by the two appellants for recovery of possession and eviction of respondents from the suit land and for mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE Original Suit, O. S. No. 1569 of 1981 had been brought by Mohammed ishaque as the plaintiff but he having died during the pendency of the suit his son plaintiff No. 2 and nephew P. W. 3 respectively appellants in LPA Nos. 205 and 211 of 1991 were substituted.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff No. l had purchased the disputed land, Act. 3-677 sq. yards, now it is in the AOC Centre, Secunderabad, by registered sale deed dated 23-1-1946 and was possessing and cultivating the land but that the land was encircled by the AOC Centre for which a notice was issued to the Commandant AOC Centre on 2-11-1953 seeking eviction of the land. A reply was sent by the Commander, Ex. A-16 on 1-12-1953 stating that ac. 4-00 of land which was within the AOC Centre perimeter around which a fencing was erected more erroneously than intentionally, was ploughed and crops were grown by the Unit and that on the complainant representing the matter, he had been requested that if he had no objection, the fencing would be removed after the crop was ready for cutting and that the complaint had agreed to this request. Even so the plaintiff No. l was not put in possession of the property and at the instance of the parties a joint survey was conducted on 6-4-1978 and a panchanama was prepared showing the plaintiffs land to have been encircled by the AOC Centre but that the panchanama was not signed by the Commander. A notice was issued by the AOC on 20-8-1981 asking the 1st plaintiff to remove the mulgies erected by him upon the land on which a notice was given under Sec. 80 CPC by the 1st plaintiff on 11-10-1981 claiming the reliefs in the suit. The suit registered as O. S. No. 1569 of 1981 was thereafter instituted for the reliefs claimed. Contesting the suit the only defence taken was that the land was shown as being within Ac. 118-15 cents in the General Land register, a statutory register, as belonging to AOC. The trial Court found the plaintiffs to have title to the land and decreed the suit. But on appeal the learned single Judge held the suit to be barred by limitation holding the respondents to have perfected title against the appellants by adverse possession and that the suit for the purpose was barred by limitation as the respondents were possessing the land adversely to the appellants for more than twelve years from the date of the institution of the suit.

( 4 ) URGING the appeal Mr. Subrahmanya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants urges the single question of the judgment of the learned single Judge being vulnerable i n law as the respondents never raised the question of adverse possession in the defence, no issue was struck on the question, no evidence was led in the matter and hence it being not case of the parties, it is not open to the court to have made out a third case. It is his submission that the specific case of the respondents was not perfection of title by adverse possession but on the contrary asserting a title in themselves, on the basis of the inclusion of the land in the General Land Register and denying the title of the plaintiffs to the land.

( 5 ) THE suit was clearly one brought by the plaintiff on the basis of their title. The suit is clearly under Art. 65 of the Limitation Act. In such a suit, it is the well settled position of law, that the plaintiff has only to establish his title in respect of the land and if the title is established he is entitled to the decree unless the defendant sets up a p lea of adverse possession and establishes to have perfected an adverse title, thereby destroying the title of the plaintiff in the land.

( 6 ) ONCE the initial title of the plaintiff is established the onus is upon the defendant to establish the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document