L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.78 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The sole respondent herein was the only plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession in respect of two items of suit schedule property and for mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit, as prayed for, through its judgment and decree dated 15-04-1987. Aggrieved by that, the appellant herein filed A.S.No.317 of 1988 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal through judgment dated 17-08-2000. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

The plea of the respondent herein in his suit was that Smt. Thota Venkata Bharatamma owned both the bits in item ‘1’ and her husband, Venkata Subbayya owned item 2, of the suit schedule properties. It was stated that Venkata Subbayya executed a Will, dated 18-01-1963 (Ex.A-28) in favour of his wife Bharatamma in respect of item 2, and on his death, Bharatamma became the absolute owner of that item also. Bharatamma is said to have executed a Will, in favour of her brother, Sri N. Satyanarayana, and after the death of Bharatamma, on 14-05-1967, Satyanarayana became the absolute owner of that property. It was also pleaded that item 1 of the suit schedule property, agricultural lands, were under lease to Sri K. Kumara Swamy and the tenancy was attorned to the legatee, Satyanarayana. According to the respondent, he purchased items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties from the legal heirs of Satyanarayana.

It was pleaded that the appellant is the adopted son of Venkata Subbayya and Bharatamma and taking advantage of that relation, the natural father of the respondent, had started interfering with the possession of the suit schedule properties. Initially the suit was filed, for the relief of declaration and injunction, and thereafter alternative relief i.e. recovery of possession was added.

The appellant opposed the suit. He did not dispute the manner in which, the suit schedule properties were owned and enjoyed by his adoptive parents, and the factum of execution of a Will, by Bharatamma in favour of her brother, Satyanarayana. He, however, stated that soon after the death of Bharatamma, he assumed possession of the suit properties and continued to remain in possession and enjoyment, even by the date of filing of the suit. After narrating the manner in which he was said to be enjoying of the property, he raised the plea of adverse possession.

The suit was decreed, granting the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, but the one for mesne profits was rejected. A.S.No.317 of 1988 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. Sri T.S. Anand learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, ever since his adoptive mother Bharatamma died on 14-05-1967. He contends that though Bharatamma executed a Will in favour of his brother, Satyanarayana, no steps were taken by the legatee to assume possession of the properties, and in that view of the matter, the appellant has perfected his title through adverse possession. He submits that the lands in item 1 of plaint schedule were under lease with the tenants, by the time Bharatamma died, and the appellant assumed constructive possession through the same tenants by receiving rents and exercising other rights of ownership. As regards item 2, he submits that it is directly under possession and enjoyment of the appellant through out. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court did not deal with the issue pertaining to adverse possession from the correct perspective.

Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the absolute ownership of Bharatamma over both the items of the suit schedule is not denied, and the Will executed by her is not disp