( 1 ) THE legal representatives of me sole defendant in O. S. No. 82 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, filed this second appeal. The relevant facts may, briefly, be stated as under. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) ONE Mr. Shaik Moula Saheb had two sons by name, Shaik jaffer and Shaik Mohaboob, and a daughter by name Shaik bhanubi. Plaintiffs who are the children of Shaik Jaffer, filed the suit alleging that their grant-father Moula Saheb acquired about 2 acres of agricultural land at Nuzvid (suit schedule land), and was living with his son, at Vijayawada, for most part of his life. The land was said to have been leased to his son-in-law Shaik Masthan, the sole defendant, (on whose death, his LRs were brought on record), on payment of annual maktha. It was alleged that Moula Saheb executed a registered gift deed dated 13-11-1979, donating the suit schedule property to the respondents, out of love and affection. The plaintiffs filed A. T. C No. 35 of 1981 in the Court of ii Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada, seeking eviction of the defendant from the land. The detfendant, filed a counter affidavit, stating that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists, between himself and the plaintiffs. It was his case that Shaik Moulana Saheb made an oral gift in his favour on 15-08-1967 and ever since then, he is enjoying the rights of ownership, over the land. It was in this background, that the plaintiffs filed the suit, seeking eviction of the defendant.

( 3 ) IN his written statement, the defendant reiterated the stand taken by him in ATC No. 35 of 1981. In addition, he took the plea of adverse possession. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and through its judgment dated 20-08-2001 decreed the suit. The legal representatives of the defendant filed A. S. No. 10 of 2002, in the court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna, at vijayawada. The appeal was dismissed on 23-12-2005. Hence this second appeal.

( 4 ) SRI P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit was clearly barred by limitation, inasmuch as it was filed several years after the defendant asserted his title, on the basis of an oral gift, and through adverse possession. He further contends that the oral gift in favour of his client was much anterior in point of time, and the subsequent registered gift, in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be accorded any precedence. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the plea of oral gift urged by the defendant was found to be without any basis and the question of his being accorded any precedence over the registered gift deed does not arise. As to the plea of adverse possession, learned counsel submits that it cannot co-exist with the title, pleaded on the basis of oral gift and that at any rate, the suit was filed within the limitation. The trial court framed the fallowing issues, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

1) Whether the plainfiffs are entitled to declaration of title over the schedule properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the schedule properties? 3) Whether the defendant acquired title by adverse possession? 4) Whether the suit is bad, as it is hit by doctrine of res judicata? 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits?

On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and exs. A-2 to A-25 were marked. Ex. A-1 is the registered gift deed dated 13-11-1979. PW-7 is the scribe and PW-9 is the attestor thereof. The other documents are mostly in the form of cist receipts. On behalf of the defendants DWs 1 to 4 were examined and exs. B-1 to B-11 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court framed the following points,

1) Whether the respondents established their right an title over the schedule property? 2) Whether the appellants established the alleged oral

Click Here to Read the rest of this document