The appellant filed O.S.No.19 of 2000 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property viz., an extent of 21 guntas in Survey No.124/A,B,C of Thummanapally Village. He filed I.A.No.221 of 2000 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The I.A. was dismissed by recording a finding to the effect that the appellant is not in possession of the property. Therefore, he amended the plaint to incorporate the relief of recovery of possession by obtaining permission from the Court. The appellant pleaded the manner in which he acquired rights and title over the property. He pleaded that the 1st respondent, who is the immediate neighbour, encroached into the property and respondents 2 to 5 have purchased small bits out of the said land.

The suit was contested by the 1st respondent. He pleaded that he is the owner of about Ac.5.37 guntas of land in Survey No.124/D and that the suit schedule property is part of it. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment, dated 19.01.2005. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.1 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad and the same was dismissed on 07.01.2006. Hence, this second appeal.

Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the three grounds, on which the trial Court and the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit and the appeal, are untenable in law. He contends that the view taken by the Courts below that the suit for recovery of possession without there being any prayer to declaration of title is not maintainable cannot be sustained in law. He further submits that though the 1st respondent did not raise the plea of adverse possession, the suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was not at all under obligation to pray for cancellation of documents, through which the suit schedule property is said to have been transferred. In support of each of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon precedents.

Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. on the other hand, submits that the appellant was not clear as to the exact location of the suit schedule property and the same is evident from the fact that even a Commissioner appointed by the Court has reported that the property cannot be localized. He submits that when there is a serious dispute as to the location and entitlement, the suit for mere recovery of possession is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that atleast when the respondents pleaded that the property was the subject matter of various documents, the relief as to the cancellation of the said documents ought to have been prayed for.

The trial Court in all framed the following four issues for its consideration, based upon the pleadings of the parties:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for in the plaint?

2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3) Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking a relief of declaration that the documents which are registered sale deeds existing in favour of defendants null and void?

4) Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of plaintff’s side title in the schedule property?

On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were filed. The Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court with certain directions. The Commissioner and the Mandal Surveyor were examined as C.Ws.1 and 2 and the record pertaining to the survey was marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. The suit was dismissed and in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the lower appellate Court has undertaken discussion with reference to the issues framed by the trial Court and did not frame any points independently. The appeal