( 1 ) NERUSU Seetharavamma, the unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below had preferred the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after in short referred to as code for the purpose of convenience ). Nerusu Durgaiah, respondent herein, the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 85 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Repalle, for declaration that the schedule property belongs to the plaintiff with absolute rights and for possession of the said property and also for future profits and costs of the suit.

( 2 ) BEFORE the court of first instance, on the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and Dws. 1 and 2 was recorded and Exs. A-1 to A-9 were marked and ultimately the court of first instance came to the conclusion that the respondent in the present second appeal, the plaintiff in the suit, is entitled to a decree and directed the defendant, the appellant herein to deliver item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property along with standing trees and crops and deliver item No. 2 after removing the standing structures or trees thereon, standing in the way of delivery of item No. 2 of the schedule property to the plaintiff at her costs within one week from the date of judgment. Otherwise, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it delivered through court and recover the expenses from the defendant and the future mesne profits to be ascertained by a separate application. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in the said suit carried the matter by way of appeal A. S. No. 77 of 1990 on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge, Tenali and the appellate court dismissed the said appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is preferred.

( 3 ) THE following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. (a) Whether the gift deed dated 09. 8. 1954 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? (b) Whether the oral arrangement pleaded by the plaintiff is true and not hit by section 92 of the Evidence Act? (c) Whether the defendant has perfected her title by adverse possession? (d) Whether decree for delivery of possession of the suit properties (undivided half) is executable?

( 4 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri T. S. Anand: sri T. S. Anand, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant would contend that the evidence on the aspect of oral arrangement said to have been made is inadmissible in evidence in the light of the specified bar imposed under section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the appellate court and would contend that the gift in question was not proved in accordance with law, and at any rate, the acceptance and delivery of possession had not been established, and in view of the same, it cannot be said that the courts below recorded correct findings in relation thereto. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the recitals made in Ex. A-1 and would contend that in the light of the same, the evidence of P. W. 3 would be of no consequence at all. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel would maintain that respondent-plaintiff kept quiet for sufficiently long time even after attaining majority and hence it is a clear case of perfection of adverse possession by the appellant-defendant. Even otherwise without praying the relief of partition, the decree as such cannot be put into execution. Hence, viewed from any angle inasmuch as the gift itself is not proved in accordance with law, the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in naramadaben Maganlal Thakker V. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker and others.

( 5 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri G. Dharma Rao: sri G. Dharma Rao, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document