1. The appellants herein are defendants in O.S.No.1914 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was filed for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, an extent of Ac.1.33 cents of agricultural land. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 31.12.2004. The appellants filed A.S.No.7 of 2005 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. The appeal was dismissed on 24.08.2009. Hence, this second appeal.

2. The facts that gave rise to the filing of O.S.No.1914 of 2001 are as under:

3. The appellants filed O.S.No.1872 of 1987 in the Court of the III Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the same property. They relied upon a gift deed said to have been executed in their favour by their ancestor, by name Challa Nageswara Rao, one of the sons of Challa Pakeerayya. The respondents represent the other sons of Pakeerayya or their legal representatives. Appellants pleaded that Nageswara Rao in turn got the property in a partition that took place in the year 1973 and that he gifted it to them in the year 1987.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that the partition of the properties left by Pakeerayya took place in the year 1982 and that Nageswara Rao did not have any right to execute the gift deed in favour of the appellants.

5. The contention of the respondents was accepted by the trial Court and the suit was dismissed on 05.07.1991. A.S.No.20 of 1991 filed by the appellants in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid was dismissed on 25.09.2000 and S.A.No.172 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court on 13.04.2001.

6. The respondents filed O.S.No.1914 of 2001 pleading that with the dismissal of S.A.No.172 of 2001, their title vis-à-vis the property stands established and that they are entitled to recover the possession of the suit land. The appellants resisted the suit by stating inter alia that there is no cause of action for the respondents to file the suit in view of the fact that they have been contending throughout that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and the said contention was accepted in the earlier round of litigation. It was also pointed out that even in the plaint in O.S.No.1914 of 2001, their plea was that they are in continuous possession ever since 1982 and that there is no mention as to the date on which they have been dispossessed. As observed earlier, the trial Court decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court confirmed the same.

7. Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court erred in not verifying the very existence of cause of action for the respondents to institute the proceedings. He further submits that in a suit for recovery of possession, the minimum that is required to be stated by a plaintiff is, the date and the manner in which he has been dispossessed and in the absence of such an averment, there does not exist any cause of action at all. Learned counsel submits that though not from the point of view of the limitation for filing of the suit, at least to show that the plaintiff had a genuine grievance, the statement as to the dispossession becomes necessary. He contends that the plea of the respondents in the earlier round of proceedings on the one hand and the present round on the other is self-contradictory.

8. Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the emphasis was much upon the title to the property and once the Courts held that the title to the property vested in the respondents, the subsequent suit instituted by the respondents herein for recovery of possession is permissible. He contends that an owner of the property is entitled to recover possession of the property and that under the Limitation Act, 1963, it is not necessary for a plai