This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) by the sole defendant is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2007 of the learned V Additional District Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda passed in A.S.No.2 of 2007 whereby the learned Additional District Judge by allowing the said Appeal Suit with costs throughout had set aside the decree and judgment dated 31.10.2006 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and had decreed the suit in O.S. No.82 of 1999 filed by the sole plaintiff for declaration that she is the owner of the property in an extent of Ac.2.16 guntas in Survey No.63 of Kistapuram village of Miryalaguda Mandal of Nalgonda District which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and for recovery of the said property after evicting the defendant there from.

2. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court on 31.07.2007 had formulated the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the suit for declaration of title is maintainable without impleading the third party vendors of the defendant as parties to the suit? and

(2) Whether there is any perversity in the judgment of the appellate Court?

2. (a) At the time of hearing, the following additional substantial questions of law were allowed to be raised and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent was also allowed to argue that the case does not involve such questions.

1. Whether the PW1/GPA holder can substantiate evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit to get a decree for declaration and other ancillary reliefs?

2. Whether the non examination of plaintiff is fatal to the grant of decree by the 1st appellate court?

3. Whether pre requisite conditions of the adverse possession are attracted to the grant of declaration in favour of the plaintiff by the 1st appellate court?

4. Whether the plaintiffs entitled for relief of declaration on the ground of adverse possession in the light of specific plea that the father (Mattayya) has purchased under agreement of sale under Ex.A29 followed by Ex.A31 receipt?

5. Whether the non cross examination of PW2 and PW3 are fatal to the case of the defendant?

6. Whether the findings of the 1st appellate court regarding Ex.B2 is bogus, false or unwarranted?

7. Whether the 1st appellate court has properly applied the principles of Limitation Act to bring the suit within time?

8. Whether the 1st appellate court went wrong in debarring the Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?

9. Whether the reasonings of the 1st appellate court are justifiable in reversing the decree passed by the trial court?

3. It is to be first noted that during the pendency of this Second Appeal, the sole plaintiff had died. As per the orders of this Court dated 26.09.2013 in S.A.M.P. No.922/2012, the second respondent alone is brought on record being the legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff. In the Second Appeal, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellant/defendant, the first/sole plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff for convenience and clarity.

4. To adjudicate the lis and to answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to first refer to the pleadings of both the sides.

5. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows: The first plaintiffs father Mattaiah was in possession of Ac.10.30 guntas in Survey Nos.62 and 63 of Kistapuram village since prior to Durmukhi Nama Samvatsara Margashira Bahula Ekadasi. While so, on the said day he had purchased the said land from 1) Chintoju Chandra Mouli, S/o. Ramaiah 2) Chintoju Kanakaiah, S/o. Ramaiah 3) Chintoju Ramaiah, S/o. Nagabhushanam and 4) Chintoju Mallaiah S/o. Koti Lingam for an agreed consideration of Rs.1,150/- and had paid to the vendors a sum of Rs.100/- as earnest money and had obtained an agreement of sale from them on that day. Subsequently on the Ekadasi day of Magha Bahula of the same year, the plaintiffs father had paid the balance sale consider