1. This Court on 12.3.1999 made the following order.

"The second appeal is admitted. Questions (a) and (b) of paragraph 9 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal are the substantial questions to be considered in this second appeal." The said grounds (a) and (b) read as hereunder:

(a) Whether the courts below had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit in the light of Ex.B-2 declaratory decree declaring that the properties of Darga are not wakf properties?

(b) Whether the courts below were justified in assuming that the suit properties are wakf properties in the absence of primary document of Muntakhab being produced by the plaintiff and in the teeth of Ex.B-2 decree declaring to the contrary? Learned senior counsel Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, also had pointed out that apart from the said grounds (a) and (b) under 9, ground (c) also may have to be considered and the said ground (c) reads as hereunder.

(c) Whether the courts below were justified in holding Ex.A-1 to A-3 having been proved in law inspite of the fact that the attesting witness was scribe was not examined and the signatures of A-2 cannot be compared by the court without the aid of an expert?

2. Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, learned senior counsel representing appellants, would maintain that both the court of first instance and also the appellate court totally erred in appreciating the respective stands taken by the parties. When the very right and title of the plaintiff had been denied, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the same. The learned senior counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs.B-1, B-2 and B-3 as well and would maintain that in the light of the same the stand taken by the plaintiff cannot be a sustainable stand. Further, the learned senior counsel would contend that the appellate court totally erred in relying upon the definition of 'landlord' within the meaning of Rent Control Act since the same cannot be made applicable. At any rate, in the light of the specific stand taken in Ex.B-1 by the father of the plaintiff the suit itself cannot be maintained and when that being so, in the light of the findings which had been recorded by the appellate court, this is a fit matter where an order of remand to be made. Learned counsel also had taken this court through the relevant documents and the findings recorded by both the court of first instance and also appellate court.

3. Per contra, Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel representing respondent-plaintiff would maintain that concurrent findings had been recorded by both the court of first instance and also appellate court. The learned counsel also had taken this court through the relevant findings and further explained what was the nature of relief, which had been prayed for by the father of the plaintiff in Ex.B-1 and also further had drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.A-10 apart from Exs.A-1, A1-A, A-2. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs.A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 as well and would maintain that there had been some confusion, but the same can be clarified, especially, in relation to Ex.B-1 in the light of the nature of the relief which had been prayed in Ex.B-1 and the averments made in the said plaint.

4. Heard the counsel on record.

5. The substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal had been admitted and yet another substantial question of law which had been pointed out by the learned senior counsel Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar already had been specified supra. The present appellants are unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.1532 of 1986 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and appellants in A.S.No.215 of 1994 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is needless to say that the respondent is the successful plaintiff in both the courts below.

6. The parties herein would be ref