COMMON JUDGMENT:- These two second appeals are filed by the unsuccessful defendant- Tekulapally Veera Reddy aggrieved by the decree and judgment made in A.S. No.1 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District, and also the decree and judgment made in A.S. No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Court of said Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District, respectively. The appellant died and the legal representatives were brought on record in both these appeals. Narayana Reddy, second plaintiff in the suit O.S. No.20 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gajwel, is the respondent. It is stated that first plaintiff Sathamma is no more. Both the plaintiff-Sathamma and Narayana Reddy instituted the suit - O.S. No.20 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gajwel, praying for the reliefs of cancellation of a Registered Sale Deed dated 1.9.1983 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the Act, for brevity) and also for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the suit lands in the event defendant being found in possession thereof and also prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The suit was resisted by filing a written statement in detail and the Court of first instance, after settling the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3, D.Ws.1 to 6, marked Exs.A.1 to All and Exs.B.l to B.12 'A' and ultimately came to the conclusion that the registered sale deed No.1806 dated 1.9.1983 be cancelled, which shall be communicated to the Sub-Registrar, Gajwel, for noting the cancellation on the said registered document, but however, recorded a finding that second plaintiff is not entitled to any relief since he failed to prove that he is legal heir of first plaintiff and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, second plaintiff carried the matter by way of appeal - AS. No.17 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Gajwel, and the defendant aggrieved by the decree relating to the cancellation also preferred AS. No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Court of said Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District. The lower appellate Court by a common judgment, after recording reasons, allowed the appeal - AS. No.17 of 1994 and dismissed the appeal - A.S. No.1 of 1995 and the parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present two second appeals had been preferred. As referred to supra, the original defendant/appellant died. The legal representatives were brought on record and at present the said legal representatives are further prosecuting the second appeals.

2. Sri V. V. Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court and would point out that ground NosA, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27 and 30 are the substantial questions of law to be considered in these second appeals. The learned Counsel also, while elaborating his submissions, would maintain that the adoption in question is not proved in accordance with law and when clear findings had been recorded by the Court of first instance, the lower appellate Court, without properly adverting to the respective contentions of the parties and without recording appropriate findings, had reversed such findings recorded by the Court of first instance and hence such findings are unsustainable. The learned Counsel also pointed out relating to the entries in the revenue records, which are left undisturbed at this stage and the appellants continuing in possession of the properties in question. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the absence of any acceptable evidence relating to the plea of adoption and also in the absence of any other evidence to the effect that respondent/second plaintiff succeeded to the interest of' first plainti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document