The respondents filed O.S.No.160 of 2000 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni against the appellants for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, a residential house in H.Muravani Village of Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District. They pleaded that late Smt.Sunkulamma, mother-in-law of respondent No.1 and grand-mother of respondent Nos.2 to 6, was the original owner of the suit schedule property. After her death, they have succeeded to the property. They are said to have shifted to Mumbai for livelihood and that taking advantage of the same, the appellants have broke open the lock in the year 1994 and entered into possession. Reference was made to the exchange of notices and thereafter, the suit was filed.

The appellants filed a written statement stating that they purchased the suit schedule property from one Veera Reddy under a sale deed, dated 11.02.1970. It was urged that Smt.Sunkulamma was indebted to P.Veera Reddy and as an adjustment of the debt, Sunkulamma orally sold the said property to him. They have also raised the plea of adverse possession.

The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 03.06.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.25 of 2009 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The appeal was dismissed on 09.12.2010. Hence, this second appeal.

Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the suit was filed long after the accrual of the cause of action to the respondents and that the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint. He further submits that the oral and documentary evidence proved the fact that the title to the property has passed on to the appellants in the year 1970 and that ever since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes etc. He also submits that even if any doubt as to the title existed, the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants ought to have been accepted.

Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the concept of oral sale is totally unknown to law and that no title as such has accrued to the appellants vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. He further submits that the plea as to acquisition of tile to the property through a sale on the one hand and adverse possession on the other, would lead to a contradiction in terms. He also submits that a finding was recorded by the trial Court to the effect that the possession of the suit schedule property was taken by the appellants by breaking open the lock somewhere in the year 1994 and that the appellants cannot disown the version of their own witnesses.

The respondents filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of an item of immovable property. The appellants have on the one hand pleaded that they purchased the property in the year 1970 through Ex.B1 and on the other raised the plea of adverse possession.

The trial Court framed and following issues and additional issues for its consideration:

Issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of right and title over the suit schedule house?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of possession of the suit house?

(3) Whether the suit house was fallen to the share of defendant No.2 during the partition about 25 years ago?

Additional Issues:

(1) Whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession?

(2) Whether the defendants had occupied the suit schedule house forcibly in the year 1994 as contended by the plaintiffs?

On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were filed. On behalf of the appellants, D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B1 to B17 were filed. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. In A.S.No.25 of 2009, the lower appellate Court framed as many as seven points for its consideration, namely:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs as legal heirs and