( 1 ) THIRD defendant in O. S. No. 81 of 1981 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, filed this Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30. 12. 1993, passed by the learned 1 Additional district Judge, Karimnagar, in A. S. No. 13 of 1990.

( 2 ) THE first respondent (who is since dead and represented by his successors) filed the suit, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and mesne profits thereof. The case of the first respondent is as under: his father father late Veeraiah and one Sri Balaiah were the sons of one Sri Rajaiah. Yashoda s the wife of Balaiah. They did not have any issues, and Balaiah died in the year 1950 or so. Yashoda was given the suit schedule property in a fami y settlement, with life interest in her. She died some time in the year 198. The limited share of Yashoda enlarged into absolute estate, by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short the Act) and since she did not have any Class-I heirs, the property devolved upon the sister of her husband, by name Buchamma. He purchased the suit schedule property from Buchamma, through the sale deed, dated 25. 04. 1981, marked as Ex. A. 1 and possession of the property was delivered to him. Th appellant, her father-in-law and her husband, who are impleadcd as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, have dispossessed him from the land on 12. 06. 1981. He urged that the appellant and other defendants in the suit have no right, interest or enforceable claim vis-a-vis the suit schedule property.

( 3 ) THE suit was mainly contested by the appellant herein. She pleaded that the partition between Balaiah, husband of Yashoda, on the one hand, and Veraiah, father of the first respondent, on the other, took place, during their life time and that the property held by Balaiah devolved upon his wife- Yashoda, on his death. She contended that after the death of Balaiah, yashoda had fostered her, by performing the necessary ceremonies. It was her case that she was treated, as if she is the natural daughter, and that her marriage was also performed by Yashoda. She ultimately contended that the suit schedule property was settled upon her by Yashoda. It was her case that the sale deed-Ex. A. 1 was a fictitious and sham document. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 21. 05. 1990. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed A. S. No. 13 of 1990 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar, and the same was allowed.

( 4 ) SRI I. Aga Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first respondent failed to prove that the suit schedule property devolved upon Buchamma and that she had executed Ex. A. 1 in his favour, He submits that when there is serious dispute as to the entitlement of the first respondent, a suit for recovery of possession, without claiming the relief of declaration of title, was not maintainable. The learned counsel points out that the failure or refusal on the part of the first respondent, either to implead Buchamma or to examine her as a witness, would lead to an inference that no rights have either accrued to or have flown from buchamma, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. He contends that even during the lifetime of Yashoda, the title of the land passed on to the appellant and the same is evidenced by various records, such as Ryotwari pass Book, marked as Ex. B. 1.

( 5 ) SRI P. V. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that Buchamma became the owner of the suit schedule property, by operation of Section 14 and Schedule to the Act and since the first respondent purchased the property from the said buchamma, there was no necessity for claiming the relief of declaration of title. He submits that being a third party to the sale deed, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge any grounds, as to the validity or otherwise of the same. The learned counsel further submits that even otherwise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document