Point of law: Considerations in terms of Section 100 CPC arise only when there is substantial question of law and not mere such questions of law or one based on facts. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 is right in placing reliance on these rulings. However, it has to be borne in mind that in case of misapplication of law and improper appreciation of evidence on record, particularly the documentary evidence, it is the bounden duty of the High Court sitting in second appeal to consider such questions which are substantial in nature in terms of law. Similar situation is found in the present case where the learned appellate Judge miserably failed to appreciate the documentary evidence let in on behalf of the parties properly. There is complete misapplication and improper appreciation of fact vis-a-vis the law. These circumstances are sufficient for this Court to interfere in terms of Section 100 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

The 1st defendant in O.S.No.24 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of Smt. Rameeza Bi, Wife of Sri Syed Peeru Saheb.

2. Smt. Rameeza Bi as the sole plaintiff instituted the suit against the appellant and the respondents 8 and 9 to declare her right, title and interest to the plaint schedule property and to deliver the same to her.

3. Smt. Rameeza Bi died during pendency of the suit. The respondents 1 to 7 were brought on record as her legal representatives.

4. The plaint schedule described the land in dispute as an extent of Ac.0-81 cents in S.No.372/3 being a wetland at Palamaner of Chittoor District. There are 14 tamarind trees in this land. It shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’, for convenience.

5. Sri Ballapalli Muninarayana Chetty, S/o. Sri Changala Chetty was the original owner of an extent of Ac.1-74 cents covered by S.No.372 of Palamaner. This land was sub-divided into S.Nos.372/1, 2 and 3. Sri Muninarayana Chetty had a son Sri Chengaiah Chetty. Sri Muninarayana Chetty was enjoying the above extent. Ac.0-33 cents out of it was given away under a gift admittedly by him to the appellant temple where it is located. Similarly, another extent of Ac.0-60 cents out of the same survey number classified as S.No.372/2 was gifted to this temple by him.

6. The contention of the respondents 1 to 7 is that Smt.Venkatamma, daughter-in-law of Sri Muninarayana Chetty, sold the suit land of Ac.0-81 cents under a registered sale deed on 21.6.1962 in favour of Sri Mohd.Akbar, father of Smt. Rameeza Bi for valuable consideration. Their further contention is that Sri Muninarayana Chetty had gifted away the suit land on 25.02.1938 in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt.Venkatamma. Their further contention is that in the above settlement deed the survey number is described as 372/1 which is shown similarly in the sale deed by her in favour of Sri Mohd.Akbar. Their further contention is that there was conversion of these lands into sub divisions in S.No.372 by the proceedings of the then District Collector, Chittoor in the year 1940 whereby S.No.372/3 which was otherwise shown being an extent of Ac.0-33 cents was rectified as Ac.0-81 cents and S.No.372/1 which was otherwise Ac.0-81 cents was rectified as Ac.0-33 cents.

7. The respondents 1 to 7 further contended that the suit land thus in S.No.372/3 was allotted to Smt. Rameeza Bi in the partition by her father as per the deed of partition dated 07.03.1972 and since then Smt.Rameeza Bi continued to be in possession and enjoyment of this land to which she also acquired right and interest by adverse possession.

8. The respondents 1 to 7 further contended that on behalf of the appellant, the suit land was leased out to third parties including the respondents 8 and 9 since the year 1980 including the tamarind trees without any manner of right. The respondents 1 to 7 further contended that a notice was caused on behalf of Smt. Rameeza Bi dated 01.10.1986 to the Chairman of Board of Trustees of the appellant temple to surrender possession of this land, claiming damages at Rs.4,000/- per annum and since such demand was not complied, she was constrained to lay the suit.

9. The respondents 8 and 9 remained ex parte in the suit.

10. The appellant alone contested the suit questioning its maintainability and that Smt.Venkatamma had no right and title or possession to convey the suit land to Sri Mohd. Akbar under the sale deed dated 21.10.1962. Thus, the appellant questioned the nature of this sale deed being nominal, sham document and that it was never acted upon. The appellant further contended that though Smt.Rameeza Bi had purchased the land in S.No.372/1, making a claim to S.No.372/3 is not valid and that the sub divisions as well as their extents in S.No.372 remained as such that were also reflected in FMB, since time immemorial. The appellant also contended that