IMPORTANT POINT
Whenever plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was owner of property.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.2268 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by name G.Narayana Reddy filed against the defendant, P.Narayana Reddy, (for more convenience hereafter being referred plaintiff-appellant as G and defendant-respondent as P and for more clarity, sister of G was given in marriage to P, both were originally staying at Hyderabad and now both at abroad) for declaration that plaintiff is lawful owner of the plaint schedule property of 401 square yards in S.No.300, house bearing No.2-3-703/2 of Amberpet, Hyderabad; within the boundaries described of South and East-House Nos.2-3-703/3/A and 1 respectively and North and West–road; for order restoring possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for such other reliefs, impugning the dismissal decree and judgment dated 22.03.2005, filed the present appeal.

2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal are that the decree and judgment of the trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and outcome of improper appreciation of the pleadings, issues framed and the evidence on record, that trial Court should have seen that Ex.A.2 is inadmissible for want of stamp duty and registration and the same is void in law and no rights flow in favour of the defendant therefrom, that the trial Court should have seen that the plaintiff G is the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Ex.B.1=A1 (B1 is original sale deed,1963 and CC of it is A.1) and is entitled for the relief of declaration of title and for possession, however, the trial Court failed to see that the defendant P has not even produced any evidence in support of his plea of adverse possession and the demand notices issued by Water Works Department under Exs.B.8 to B.29 for the years, 1971 to1973 did not substitute his case and that too when the suit property stands in the name of the plaintiff G in the municipal records and Exs.B.3 and B.5 dated 13.10.1984 and 05.08.2005 respectively relied on by the defendant P clearly show the tax being paid by the plaintiff G and the trial Court was erred therefrom in holding that the judgment in O.S.No.7098/1991 became final, whereas it was only an injunction suit, in fact the finding therein that the gift is invalid in law operates against the defendant P herein, that was failed to consider by the trial Court including the fact that the plaintiff G was in possession throughout until he was dispossessed in the year, 1992 by the defendant P by virtue of injunction order obtained in the injunction suit O.S.No.7098 of 1991 and the question of his filing the suit within three years after execution of Ex.B.2 does not arise and the trial Court erred in improper appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 or in relying upon the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3. Hence to set aside the dismissal decree and judgment of the trial Court and allow the appeal decreeing the plaintiff- G’s suit as prayed for.

3)(a). The learned counsel for G in support of the above grounds of appeal contended that besides the dowry asking and taking is opposed to public policy and also an offence under the Dowry prohibition Act and consequently the un registered document executed to meet the demand for not even a pasupukunkuma gift to sister or daughter to give to brother-in-law at time of marriage does not confer or create any rights, otherwise also from the transaction is a nullity being opposed to public policy and virtually thereunder any subsequent entry into possession does not give any right much less to claim with any plea of adverse possession to oppose the suit prayers for possession even declaration sought if otherwise not entitled for no need to ask and that no way effects the entitlement to possession of said property, there is no any delivery of possession pursuant to Ex.B.