( 1 ) HEARD Sri Mahadeva, learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondent herein smt. Veluru Krishnavenamma filed the suit ). S. No. 24 of 1981 on the file of the principal District Munsif, Punganur, praying for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The Court of first instance, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, D. Ws. 1 to 3, marked Exs. A-1 to A-5 and exs. B-1 to B-7 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established her title and she is entitled for even the relief of perpetual injunction.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the matterwas carried by way of appeal in A. S. No. 163 of 1990 on the file of Additional District Judge, mandanapalle, and the learned Judgeframed the point for consideration at para 7 and after discussing the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Court of first instance to be confirmed and ultimately, dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the present second Appeal is preferred. On 19-12-1996, this Court admitted the Second Appeal in view of the substantial questions of law raised in ground No. 7. The substantial questions of law raised in the Second Appeal are as hereunder:

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment of the lower appellate court is in conformity with Order 41 rule 32 in as much as no points that arise for consideration were framed for determination?

(b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case whether the approach of the lower courts treating Ex. A-1 to a-3 which do not pertain to suit site can derive a title to the plaintiff on the face of Ex. B-1, can a title be declared in favour of the plaintiff?

(c) Whether Ex. A-1 and A-2 create a title in favour of the plaintiff as per section 105 of Transfer of Property act, 1882?

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant made elaborate submissions pointing out to certain portions of evidence of P. W. 1 and would contend that in the light of admissions made by P. W. 1, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not relate to the plaint schedule property and inasmuch a , the plaintiff was unable to discharge her burden, the decree made by both the courts below cannot be sustained.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel also would contend that in fact, the Courts below had appreciated only the stand taken by the plaintiff and had not appreciated the stand taken by the defendant at all and the findings had been recorded in such a fashion as though the burden lies on the defendant and not on the plaintiff and this approach adopted by both the Courts below cannot be sustained.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel also would submit that non-consideration of the material piece of evidence would constitute substantial question of law. Further, misreading of the documents also would constitute substantial question of law, and hence, inasmuch as, even on the strength of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, the decree for declaration of title and injunction, as such, cannot be granted. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

( 8 ) . N. Pramod, learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff in all fairness would submit that framing of consideration by the appellate Court though not happily worded, the appellate court had taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances, recorded findings in detail and in view of the same, inasmuch as, all the aspects had been considered, the matter need not be remanded on that ground.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel also had taken this Court through certain portions of evidence of D. W. 1 and would maintain that on the strength of this evidence of D. W. 1 apart from the clear evidence of P. W. 1, the plaintiff is bound to succeed even otherw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document