Heard Sri Ramesh representing Sri S.V. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Srinivas representing Sri Dasaratha Reddy, the learned Counsel for respondent.

2. Both the Counsel made elaborate submissions taking this Court through the pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

3. Sri Ramesh, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the application C.M.P. No 18112/2000 wherein the relief for reception of additional evidence had been prayed for and would contend that these documents were available during the pendency of the suit, the Counsel had not filed the same and these documents are very essential to prove the factum of possession and hence, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute, the matter may have to be remanded after receiving the additional evidence. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

4. Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the respondent on the contrary had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and would maintain that none of the cont