S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants in the appeal suit and the second appeal are common. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are interconnected, and the questions of fact and law are common, so they were argued together and are being disposed together.

( 2 ) IT would be useful to briefly state the factual background to appreciate the contentions raised.

( 3 ) ONE Latif Ahmed owned certain plots of land in Abilabad town. He purported to sell an extent of land measuring 15 X 30 sq. yards in adilabad town in favour of one Najimuddin under an unregistered sale deed dated November 27, 1952. He also conveyed by way of sale an extent of 80 X 110 sq. yards in Adilabad town (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) in favour of Gopalakrishna under another unregistered sale deed dated april 27, 1952. There appears to be some overlapping in regard to these two plots but there is no dispute between Najamuddin and Gopal Krishna. Be that as it may, the said Gopalakrishna sold the suit land in favour of ghowdary Rajanna under an unregistered sale deed on 8-10-1952. Chowdary Rajanna agreed to sell the suit land to Messrs. Ramakrishna and pavankumar and execnted an agreement for sale on August 28, 1974. On 4-11-1974 they filed a suit, O. S. No. 43/1974 on the file of District Munsif, abilabad for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 28-8-1974. It appears that the said suit was not cbntested and it was decreed on november 20, 1974.

( 4 ) WHILE so, on August 24, 1976 Gopalakrishna obtained an agreement from the heirs of Latif Ahmed who is said to have died some time in 1971, confirming the agreement executed by the said Latif Ahmed on 22-4-1952. Thereafter he laid a suit O. S. No. 40 of 1976 on the file of district Munsif, Abilabad for specific performance of contract for sale against the heirs of late Latif Ahmed, This suit was also decreed, on october 11, 1976. The sons of Latif Ahmed executed a registered sale deed in favour of Gopalakrishna in pursuance of the decree in the said suit O. S. No. 40/76, on 20-12-1976.

( 5 ) M/s. RAMAKRISHNA and Pavankumar filed E. P. No. 12/76 in O. S. No. 43/74 praying, inter alia, for delivery of possession of the suit land, the decree was executed and possession was delivered to them by the bailiff on 17-7-1976 Complaining about the dispossession Najmuddin filed E. A. No. 11/76 in E. P. No. 12/76 under Order 21 Rule 100 C. P. C. against ramakrishna and Pavankumar on 6-8-1976. Najmuddin set up title in respect of an extent of land 15 x 30 sq. yards which he claimed to have purchased under the unregistered sale deed dated 27-2-1952. He further claimed that be bad been in possession of the same from the date of sale in his favour. The trial court found oh the question of title as well as possession against him and dismissed the E. A. on 6-2-1981. Najmuddin carried the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Adilabad in A. S. No. 25/81. The learned appellate judge confirmed the findings of the trial court in regard to title but found that he was in possession of the land referred to above and was dispossessed in execution of the decree on 17-7-1976 and allowed the appeal on March 3, 1986. Against the judgment and desree in the said appeal, A. S. No. 12/81, the second appeal S. A. No. 368/86, has been filed.

( 6 ) THE said Gopalakrishna filed O. S. No. 14/81 on the file of the additional District Judge, Adilabad for declaration of his title to and possession of the suit land on the above said facts against the said pavankumar and Ramakrishna. They contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land either actually or constructively at any time within 12 years prior to the date of filling of the suit and by the principle of res judicata in view of the judgment in E. A. No. 11/76. In fact the last mentioned ground was taken by way of amendment of the written statement which was a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document