1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, whose suit, O.S.No.1540 of 1996 for declaration and possession was dismissed by the trial Court under judgment and decree dated 17.02.2004.

2. Mr. V. Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has pointed out that the impugned judgment of the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit merely on the plea of the respondents/defendants that they are in adverse possession, though there is no issue framed nor the defendants have established any ingredients of adverse possession.

3. Per contra, Mr. J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, submits that the plea of adverse possession is only an alternate plea and even ignoring the finding of the trial Court on that aspect, the suit was rightly dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of her claim for title.

4. The aforesaid rival contentions, therefore, need to be considered and resolved.

PLEADINGS:

5. The plaint allegations proceed to state that the suit schedule house originally belonged to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and it was allotted to one Arifa Begum. She is stated to have entered into an agreement of sale with one Mehrunnisa Begum on 18.01.1961 and the said purchaser came into possession of the property since then. Later, there were disputes between Arifa Begum and Mehrunnisa Begum, which resulted in civil suits, being O.S.Nos.269 and 280 of 1968 and further appeal, being A.S.No.86 of 1974 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said civil proceedings, the purchaser, Mehrunnisa Begum succeeded and the vendor, Arifa Begum, executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mehrunnisa Begum dated 22.02.1980, marked as Ex.A5 and accompanied by plan, Ex.A6. It is alleged that Mehrunnisa Begum gifted the property to her son, defendant No.1, under oral gift deed dated 20.12.1980 and later executed a memorandum recording the said gift on 27.01.1983. It is stated that the first defendant, thereafter, executed a registered sale deed dated 09.10.1996, Ex.A3, in favour of plaintiff. It is stated that though the sale deed recites delivery of possession to the plaintiff, the first defendant, in fact, stated, at the time of registration of sale deed, that his maternal uncle and his family are residing in the said house and that they would vacate the said house in two or three days of registration. The plaintiff, allegedly, believed the said version and accepted the execution and registration of sale deed but her subsequent efforts to get possession failed, ultimately, leading to filing of the present suit, which was filed on 15.11.1996.

6. The first defendant, vendor of the plaintiff, remained ex parte. Defendants 2 to 6, 8 and 9, who are occupiers, filed a common written statement denying the plaint allegations. Defendants, however, did not contravert the ownership of Arifa Begum but disputed that there was any agreement with Mehrunnisa Begum or that there was any sale deed in her favour. They also denied the gift, allegedly, executed by Mehrunnisa Begum in favour of the first defendant, vendor of the plaintiff and also denied the title of the plaintiff.

The sheet anchor of their case was that neither Mehrunnisa Begum nor the first defendant was ever in possession of the suit house and that the defendants continued to remain in possession of the suit house since 1977 and as such, they claimed that the said possession is open, uninterrupted and thereby, the defendants claimed title by adverse possession.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration, as asked for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the past mesne profits of Rs.2000/-

3. Whether the defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the future mesne profits @ Rs.2000/- from