1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 1979 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Andole at Jogipet is the appellant. He filed the suit originally against one Mr.Golla Nagaiah, the sole defendant, for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and ascertainment of mesne profits, in respect of the land in Survey No.105 F (English letter equivalent to that of Telugu) of Bodmatpally Village, Medak District. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died and his brothers, defendants 2 and 3 were brought on record. Subsequently, defendant No.3 died and his legal representatives are brought on record.

2. The appellant pleaded that his mother, by name Papamma, was the owner of the said property and after her death, he succeeded to the same. It was his case that succession has been granted in his favour by the revenue authorities in the year 1970. He alleged that the defendant dispossessed him from the suit land in the 1st week of June, 1977 with the help of antisocial elements.

3. A written statement was filed by the sole defendant. He admitted that the land was originally owned by the mother of the appellant and after her death, the appellant succeeded to the same. According to him, the appellant and his brother-in-law, by name Sangappa, sold the suit land to him, vide document dated 29.07.1957, marked as Ex.B.1, for a consideration of Rs.525/- and that a receipt, marked as Ex.B.2, was issued evidencing the receipt of the entire consideration. According to him, he is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land ever since 1957 and he denied the allegation of trespassing into the land in the year 1977.

4. Through its judgment, dated 26.09.1991, the trial Court decreed the suit. Thereupon, the respondents filed A.S.No.15 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Medak. The appeal was allowed on 14.03.1996. Hence, this Second appeal.

5. Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the respondents admitted the title of the plaintiff, it was not open to them to take the plea of adverse possession. He contends that respondent did not take any plea under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further contends that the appellant flatly denied the execution of Ex.B.1 and at any rate, he was minor as on the date of execution of the said document.

6. Ms. Padma Saranappa, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the lower appellate Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the respondents are in continuous possession of the land from the year 1957 and that the suit was barred by limitation. She contends that the appellant failed to prove that he was minor as on the date of execution of Ex.B.1 and in that view of the matter, the said document deserved to be taken as proved.

7. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2. He filed Exs.A.1 to A.13. Out of them, Ex.A.1 to A.12 are the pahanies from the year 1964-65 to 1976-77 and Ex.A.13 is the Faisal Patti for the year 1969-70, in which the succession over the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, D.W.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked. It has already been pointed out that Exs.B.1 and B.2 are unregistered sale deed and receipt respectively. Ex.B.3 is the pouthi bahi book and Ex.B.4 is the land revenue pass book. Exs.B.5 to B.9 are the land revenue receipts, Ex.B.10 is the pahani for the year 1963-64 and Ex.B.11 is a ryot pass book.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration or ownership of the suit land? 2. whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit land? 3. whether the plaintiff is e