1. This appeal is filed under Order LVIII Rule 1(u) of CPC challenging the order dt.16.11.2012 in AS.No.120 of 2010 of the II Addl. District Judge, Warangal, setting aside the judgment and decree dt.21.07.2010 in OS.No.778 of 2006 of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal.

2. The appellants are defendants in the above suit.? The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants and for costs.

3. The plaintiff contended that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property which she had purchased from Smt. K. Shyamalabai under a registered sale deed Ex.A.1/dt.25.08.1981; that her vendor had purchased the said property from its original owner Modem Kanakaiah (for short, ‘Kanakiah’) under a private sale deed Ex.A2/dt.08.03.1973;? that on account of employment of her husband and after his demise, she is staying with her daughters at Hyderabad; that the defendants who are residing towards the southern side of the plaint schedule property occupied it by erecting a shed and a compound wall and this was discovered when the plaintiff and her son-in-law went to Warangal on 22.02.2006; that when the defendants were questioned, the? defendants claimed that 2nd defendant is the owner of the property.? The plaintiff alleged that taking advantage of her old age and her absence, the defendants illegally occupied the plaint schedule property and they are liable to be evicted.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by 1st defendant.? They denied the title and possession of the plaintiff and her vendor.? They contended that that mother of 1st defendant purchased 500 sq.yds including the plaint schedule property from one I. Komalamma and I. Sakkamma under Ex.B.2 simple sale deed dt.01.05.1970; that these individuals had previously purchased it from? Kanakaiah on 02.09.1964 under Ex.B1; that? 1st defendant had got 500 sq.yds including the plaint schedule property? in a family partition in 1977; that he constructed a house in the said plot in 1992 and also a compound wall and residing therein; and that under Ex.B.6 registered Gift Settlement Deed dt.13.11.2003 and Ex.B7 rectification deed, the 1st defendant had gifted the plaint schedule property of 228 ? sq.yds to his wife, the 2nd defendant? out of love and affection.? She also pleaded that she had perfect title and possession over the plaint schedule property from 1970 and therefore the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and ought to be dismissed.

5. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :

“1.? Whether the plaintiff got valid title to the schedule property.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for.

3. To what relief.”

6. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1. to A.5.? The defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.13.

7. By judgment and decree dt.21.07.2010, the Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs.? It held that the plaintiff did not establish the title and possession of? Kanakaiah from whom her predecessor in title Smt. K. Shyamalabai purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2 dt.08.08.1973; that Ex.A.2 appears to be a created document and not genuine;? it is inadmissible in evidence as it is unregistered;? there is no evidence to show that plaintiff was in enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit; that Ex.A.1 did not confer any title upon her; plaintiff had admitted that she did not know when the defendants occupied the plaint schedule property? and she ought to have filed the suit within twelve years from the date of her dispossession. So the suit is barred by limitation.? It also held although Exs.B.1 and B.2 are unregistered sale deeds, D.1 had paid stamp duty and penalty and they indicate the possession of mother of the 1st defendant and her vend