Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal was admitted and would maintain that even if the findings of the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court are to be taken into consideration, the tenancy not being in serious controversy unless and until the appellants are evicted by due process of law, the possession cannot be disturbed. The learned counsel also would maintain that when specific stand had been taken by the appellants relating to the execution of the agreement of sale by the wife of the plaintiff, the non-examination of the wife is a serious lapse and adverse inference should have been drawn in this regard, and hence, the findings recorded cannot be sustained and the second appeal is to be allowed.

3. Per contra, Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property is not in serious controversy. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellants that the owner of the property at any point of time executed any agreement of sale. Even otherwise, the agreement of sale cannot be believed for the reasons, which had been recorded in detail by the Appellate Court. The learned counsel also would maintain that though the appellate Court slightly modified the relief virtually in a way, the findings recorded being concurrent findings, in a second appeal normally such findings need not be disturbed. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the relevant statutory provision under Section 111 (g) (2) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and would maintain that in the light of the same, the relief of recovery of possession also which had been granted by the appellate Court cannot be found fault. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

4. Perused the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the Appellate Court.

5. On 28.02.1997, this Court made the following order:-

ADMIT. The substantial question of law is, that involves in this second appeal is, as framed in ground No.1 of the grounds of appeal. Ground No.1 specifies, is it permissible under law to draw adverse inference against the person who could not secure the witness in spite of his best efforts when the other side is very much able to produce the same to have the adverse inference against the said person?.

6. In addition to the substantial question of law, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, pointed out yet another substantial question of law as hereunder:-

"Is it permissible to evict a tenant without due process of law?"

7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the said substantial question of law is also to be taken up for consideration by this Court.

8. This Court on 28.02.1997 granted interim suspension in C.M.P.No.2224 of 1997.

9. The second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendants being aggrieved of the decree and judgment in A.S.No.29 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet. The first appellant died and appellants 3 and 4 were brought on record by virtue of an order, dated 24.07.1007 in C.M.P.No.1825 of 2007.

10. It is needless to say that the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.408 of 1987 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Rajampet. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S.No.408 of 1987.

11. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The same was resisted by the defendants. On settlement of issues, the Court of first instance recorded the evidence of P.W.1, D.Ws.1 to 3