This second appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2004 in A.S.No.109 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District Judge Court, Kurnool, confirming in appeal the decree and judgment dated 28.11.2002 in O.S.No.105 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 5 came on record as her legal representatives.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that first plaintiff purchased plaint schedule property from father of the defendant on 03.7.1978 under a registered sale deed. She erected a hut in one portion of the site and divided the remaining site into three portions. She let out two portions, marked as ‘B’ schedule property, to the defendant and his father on oral lease at monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The defendant paid rent for some time and thereafter committed default in payment of rent. The first plaintiff demanded defendant to pay the rent or to vacate ‘B’ schedule property. The defendant did not heed to the demand. Then first plaintiff filed R.C.C. No.8 of 1994 before the Rent Controller, Kurool seeking eviction of defendant and the same was dismissed on 30.6.1998 with an observation that R.C.C. was not maintainable in view of denial of title of first plaintiff by the defendant. The father of defendant sold the property to first plaintiff for his family necessities and this fact is known to defendant. Therefore the defendant is estopped to deny the title of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff is also entitled for rents from the defendant at Rs.100/- per month with effect from February, 1997, as the claim for arrears of rent from January, 1993 to January, 1997 is barred by limitation. Even other wise, first plaintiff perfected her title by adverse possession. Hence the suit for declaration of title over ‘A’ schedule property, recovery of ‘B’ schedule property and arrears of rent from defendant.

3. The defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that the registered sale deed dated 03.7.1978 is a concocted document and was brought into existence with ulterior motive by the plaintiffs. The sale deed is void and does not convey valid title in favour of the first plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendant and his father and the defendant constructed hut in the open site adjacent to his father’s house. The plea taken by the first plaintiff that she acquired title by adverse possession is baseless. The suit is barred by time and there is no cause of action to file the suit.

4. In the trial court, on behalf of plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

5. After having thoughtful consideration to the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, the trial court arrived at conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property and recovery of arrears of rent with interest. The defendant being aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court filed A.S.No.109 of 2012. The first appellate court, while hearing the appeal, came to the conclusion that the material available on record is not sufficient to decide whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the first appellate court remitted the matter to the trial court to give a finding on point of limitation, after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on that aspect. The trial court recorded a finding that the suit is barred by limitation, in view of Article 58 of Limitation Act. On reappraising the entire material available on record, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal while confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court, except on issue No.5 with regard to point of limitation.

6. T