Defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of Acs.3-90 cents in Survey NO.100 of Rajanagaram of Rajahmundry, which hereinafter would be referred to as 'the suit land', is the appellant.

2. The case, in brief, of the respondent is that, as the appellant and her husband are closely related, she, at the instance of the appellant, had purchased the suit land under EX.A-1 registered sale deed from its owner and paid the consideration payable by her to her vendor through her husband and her brother and was put in possession thereof and later she entrusted the management of the suit land to the appellant as he promised to manage the same on her behalf. Appellant, who was sending the rentals from the suit land and was paying taxes for some years, informed her in 1971 that inasmuch as leasing out the suit land to tenants may create problems in future, he himself would cultivate the same and pay 40 bags of paddy per annum to her and started cultivating the same till the end of 1977. Later, as differences cropped up between him and her husband in connection with the settlement deed executed by Smt. Mahalakshmamma and her husband Veeraraju, appellant stopped paying rent. So, she got issued a registered notice through her advocate asking the appellant to vacate the suit land after paying the arrears due to her for which he sent reply with false and untenable allegations, disputing her title to the suit land. So the appellant who became a trespasser is liable to be evicted from the suit land.

3. The case, in brief, of the appellant as disclosed from his written statement as amended is that he never managed suit land on behalf of the respondent and never let it out to anybody on her behalf and has been in possession thereof in his own right from several decades, and thereby perfected his title thereto by adverse possession. The suit land in fact was purchased by Mahalakshmamma for her own benefit benami in the name of respondent. That is so is also evident from the settlement deed executed by the respondent in favour of Mahalakshmamma, which could not be registered due to certain circumstances. Since the respondent who is not the owner of the suit land did not seek declaration of her title to the suit land, and as her case is that he is the tenant of the suit land, the proper forum for seeking recovery of possession is the Tenancy Court but not Civil Court and so the suit has to be dismissed.

4. After the appellant was given leave to amend his written statement, respondent filed her rejoinder contending that the appellant who took some signatures of hers on blank papers must have brought into existence the settlement deed in favour of Mahalakshmamma.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and two additional issues for trial. Respondent examined her husband as P.W.1, her brother as P.W.2 and her vendor as P.W.3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On his behalf, appellant examined himself as D.W.1, a person said to be a tenant of the suit land as D.W.2 and persons said to the present at the time of execution of Ex. B-2 settlement deed by the respondent in favour of Mahalakshmamma as D.Ws.3 and 4, the Village Munsif of Rajanagaram as D.W.5 and some of the ryots as D.Ws.6 to 8 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-36. After considering the evidence on record the trial Court held on issues 1 and 2, relating to the questions whether the respondent is entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit land and whether the appellant acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession, against the appellant; on issue NO.3 relating to profits, held that they would be determined on a separate application; on additional issues relating to the questions whether the agreement dated 18-4-1959 (Ex. B-2) is true, valid and binding on the respondent and whether Ex. B-2 agreement dated 18-4-1959 is forged and fabricated as contended by the respondent, held that the Ex. B-2 is a false and invalid document, and consequently held on issue NO.4 r