This appeal is by the plaintiff against dismissal of her suit O.S.No.64 of 1998 for declaration of title with respect to A schedule properties and consequential relief of permanent injunction with respect to B schedule properties and for possession of C schedule properties.

2. The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant. She filed the present suit on the basis of suit notice Ex.A1 = Ex.B15 dated 26.09.1998 and the reply thereto by the defendant under Ex.B17 = Ex.A3 dated 08.10.1998. The foundation of plaintiff’s case is that her mother – Chinna was the only daughter of one Pyla Chinna Musalayya alias Krishnamma, who died intestate about 30 years ago and plaintiff’s mother is his only daughter and legal heir. All the suit schedule properties except few items, which are claimed by the defendant, as his self-acquisitions are, admittedly, properties of Pyla Chinna Musalayya. In the suit notice Ex.A1 referred to above, the plaintiff had asserted the said relationship and under the reply notice Ex.B17 the defendant had disputed all other allegations except relationship. The suit, therefore, was laid by the plaintiff on the foundation that her status as the grand daughter of Pyla Chinna Musalayya was admitted by the defendant and she, further, claimed that her mother being the only heir of said Musalayya succeeded to his entire property described in the suit schedules and that she left a Will dated 06.10.1963 - Ex.A5 and thereunder all the properties of her mother are bequeathed to her. The plaintiff thereby sought exclusion of defendant, her father, from all the plaint schedules by seeking relief of declaration and possession with respect to A and C schedule properties and claiming that she is in possession of B schedule properties sought injunction against the defendant from interfering with her possession.

3. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement and in the forefront he admitted that while the plaintiff is his daughter, the rest of the allegations were denied. It was admitted that the plaint schedule properties originally belong to Musalayya, but the said Musalayya and his wife – Pyla Sannamma had no issues, therefore, he fostered the defendant, who is none other than own sister’s son of Musalayya. It is also alleged that the marriage of the defendant with one Pyla Chinna was also performed by Musalayya and that the plaintiff is the daughter born to the defendant and Chinna. It is stated that the wife of defendant died and thereafter the defendant married another woman by name – Chandramma also at the instance of Musalayya and gave birth to three sons and one daughter. He denied the plaint allegations that plaintiff has any right to A schedule properties and also denied that he is enjoying C schedule properties as licensee of plaintiff. Similarly, the rights claimed by the plaintiff over B schedule properties were also denied. The defendant also pleaded adverse possession by alleging that Musalayya himself handed over all the properties to him and since then, the defendant is continuously enjoying ownership rights and possession and is paying land revenue etc. over the schedule properties and perfected his title by adverse possession. He also alleged that plaintiff’s marriage was performed by defendant 40 years ago by giving all the customary gifts and the plaintiff is residing with her husband’s family and she has no right, title, interest or possession with respect to plaint schedule properties. He, therefore, claims to be a foster son of Musalayya having succeeded to his properties about 35 years ago since the death of Musalayya. He also specifically alleged that house property in A schedule and items 3 and 4 of A schedule are purchased by him under Ex.B43 and as such, they are his separate properties. The Will propounded by the plaintiff Ex.A5 dated 06.10.1963 was disputed as a forged and fabricated document by further alleging that the wife of the defendant and mother of plainti