The unsuccessful first defendant being aggrieved of the reversing judgment and decree made in A.S.No.71 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal, had preferred this Second Appeal.

2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.950 of 1983 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Warangal. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are defendant Nos.2 to 5 respectively in the said suit-O.S.No.950 of 1983. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted the said suit for declaration that the plaintiff is Sajjadha of Dargah Hazrath Mashooq Rabbani, situated at Warangal to the extent of Gai Khadeem being the successor of Janishin of late Syed Shah Ali Quadri and for a consequential relief prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the functions carried on by the plaintiff as such. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, the Court of first instance recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.Ws.1 to 6, marked Exs.A-1 to A-32 and Exs.B-1 to B-149, Exs.X- 1 to X-3, recorded the findings disbelieving the stand taken by P.W-1 and also Ex.A-1, and equally disbelieved the stand taken by D.W-1 and ultimately, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal, by the unsuccessful plaintiff, in A.S.No.71 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the first defendant being aggrieved of certain adverse findings recorded by the Court of first instance appeared to have preferred Cross-Objections under Order-41 Rule-22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, as can be seen from record, these Cross-Objections were filed as an interlocutory application and it also appears that the Cross-Objections, was not numbered, but, was returned and re-submitted and was being called along with the appeal and ultimately, on 10.06.1997, the following order was made: -

"Since the judgment in appeal is pronounced today, this petition is closed."

May be for the said reason, the appellate Court had not touched the Cross- Objections at all and the appellate Court having framed the point for consideration at para No.17 proceeded to discuss with the respective pleadings of the parties in elaboration and concentrated more on the respective stands taken by the parties in the pleadings. After recording certain findings commencing from paras 18 to 24 allowed the appeal with costs throughout. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred."

On 13.11.1997, this Court made the following order: -

"Heard the learned counsel for the caveator. Admit in view of the substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal."

In C.M.P.No.17263 of 1997, interim suspension as prayed for had been granted on the said date. On 18.11.1997, in C.M.P.No.18240 of 1997, this Court made the following order: -

"Heard both sides. With the consent of both the parties, the following order is passed: -

The appellant herein shall perform Sandalurs for the whole day on 22.11.1997 and the first respondent herein will carry out the same ceremony on 23.11.1997 and on 24.11.1997 all can do it.

This order is passed without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties.

Post the Second Appeal after Pongal Vacation before the Court taking the Second Appeals for final hearing on priority basis after obtaining directions from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice."

3. Thus, the matter is coming up for final hearing and the matter had been heard finally.

4. Sri M.T.Ghori, learned counsel representing the appellant, meticulously had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled by the Court of first instance, the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court. The learned counsel would maintain that though Cross- Objections had been preferred, the said Cross