1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2005, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in A.S.No.135 of 2001 wherein and whereby the learned I Additional Chief Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2001 passed by the XVIII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in O.S.No.1529 of 1998.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as ‘the plaintiff and the defendant.’

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and he filed the suit for declaration of his title and ejectment of the defendant, who is the tenant of the schedule mentioned premises bearing No.12.10.228, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below and other material papers.

5. The brief facts relevant for considering the second appeal may be stated as follows:

6. Madanlal Pujari, the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property and asserts that he became entitled to the property under Ex.A.1, Will dated 13.10.1964 executed by one late Ramnath Pujari in his favour bequeathing all his properties in favour of the plaintiff and giving life interest to Pujari Lakshmibai, who is the wife of Ramnath Pujari. The plaintiff says that after the death of Pujari Lakshmi Bai, who enjoyed the property during her life time, he became absolute owner of the property by virtue of the said Will.

7. The defendant-Sarad Joshi is the tenant of the schedule premises. According to him, originally his father obtained the schedule premises on lease and was continuing as a tenant. After the death of his father, the defendant is continuing as tenant of the premises, but he disputed the title of the plaintiff. The defendant’s case is that Pujari Lakshmibai is the owner of the schedule premises and not Ramnath Pujari. Therefore, even if Ex.A.1-Will is considered to be true, genuine and is proved according to law, the plaintiff will not get any title to the schedule premises under the Will.

8. Prior to the suit, the plaintiff filed R.C.No.136 of 1991 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking the defendant’s eviction on account of willful default in payment of rent. However, since there arose a dispute relating to the title in consequence of denial made by the defendant, the Rent Controller closed the rent control case directing the parties to get the issue of title adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted O.S.No.1529 of 1998..

9. The case of the plaintiff is that one Ramnath Pujari, who is his paternal uncle, is the absolute owner of the properties bearing No.12-10-227, 12-10-228 and 12-10-229 situated at Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad and as already said the plaintiff became entitled to the schedule premises No.12-10-228 under the Will along with the remaining properties. Curiously, the defendant admits that Pujari Lakshmibai is the owner of the property, but only disputes the fact that the plaintiff became entitled to the property as absolute owner under the Will after the death of Pujari Lakshmibai, who was given life interest under the said Will by Ramnath Pujari. The defendant also disputed the fact that the plaintiff is the brother’s son of Ramnath Pujari. Owing to the dispute relating to the title, the defendant has not been paying rents and he has also not been continuously depositing the rents into the Court. After making an application, he only deposited rent for few months, then stopped paying rent. Therefore, when once it is established that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, the defendant is liable to be evicted.

10. The trial Court held that the plaintiff could prove that he is the owner of the property and accordingly declared his title to the property in the suit filed by him. Whereas the first appellate Court reversed the finding and held t