( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 59 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the district Munsif, Badvel, is the appellant. The suit was filed by one kanchamreddi Seshamma. While the suit was pending, she died and her nephew, Konda Ramakrishna Reddi, came on record as sole plaintiff, who is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for declaration of title over the suit schedule land admeasuring about Ac. 0. 10 cents. The trial Court decreed the suit on 28. 04. 1990. On an appeal by the defendants, however, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, by judgment dated 08. 11. 1994 in A. S. No. 10 of 1990 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) LATE Seshamma filed the suit alleging that her husband, kanchamreddi Nagi Reddi, made an application for assignment of the suit schedule land belonging to the Government to him. The Tahasildar, badvel, conducted enquiry, obtained no objection from the Gram panchayat-Porumamilla, and issued patta assigning the land to Nagi reddi. Nagi Reddi put up a hut and resided for some time. Later he let out the hut to local authority for running elementary school. After the death of Nagi Reddi, thirty five years prior to filing of the suit, his wife seshamma, inherited the same. The present plaintiff being the adopted son of her brother, Seshamma gifted the property under a Will to the plaintiff. The mother of Seshamma and the mother of the first defendant-Byna Sesha Reddy, being sisters, the first defendant used to collect the rent on behalf of Seshamma and issue receipts. In 1974 there was a fire accident and the hut was destroyed. The second defendant who resides on the eastern side of the suit site (backyard) occupied the suit land and in spite of requests, did not deliver vacant possession. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title and delivery of possession.

( 3 ) THE second defendant-Obulamma filed written statement and the first defendant filed a memo adopting the said written statement. The case of the second defendant is that she constructed the hut in the suit schedule property and leased out the same to elementary school and that the first defendant was paying house tax from 1945-1946 to 1976-1977. She also stated that late Nagi Reddi never paid any tax and was never in possession. She alleged that the first defendant handed over the site to the second defendant, and in 1974, after the hut was burnt, the second defendant alone put a cattle shed without any objection from any quarter. She also claimed that for over a period of forty five years she is in possession and therefore she perfected her title by adverse possession. The trial Court framed three issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title to the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the property? and 3) Whether the second defendant perfected the title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession? An additional issue was also framed as to whether the registered Will dated 12. 03. 1986 in favour of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding. The plaintiff. examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-8. He, also examined P. Ws. 2 to 4 to prove his case. The first defendant examined himself as D. W. 1 and marked Ex. B-1, and exs. C-1 and C-2, being the Commissioners Report and plan, were marked by the Court. Ex. A-8 is the Will dated 12. 03. 1986 executed by late seshamma in favour of the plaintiff. Ex. A-6 is the copy of the resolution by the Gram Panchayat and Ex. A-7, though marked as D. K. T patta in favour of late Nagi Reddi, is the extract of Assignment Register. Exs. A-1 and A-2 are the application made by Nagi Reddi and the endorsement made by the Tahasildar respectively. Ex. B-1 is the house tax register produced by the defendants. Be it noted that though the first defendant did not file a detailed written statement, he came to the box as d. W. 1. But the second def