Point of Law: Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 with reference to the claim of the 2nd appellant in O.S.No.431 of 1969 and also held the question of adverse possession set up by the respondent when she instituted the suit based on title allegedly acquired from the original owner.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.142 of 2011 of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 16.02.2021.

2. The defendants are the appellants. The 1st appellant is no more. He died during pendency of the suit. The appellants 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the appellants 1 and 2.

3. Smt. Attili Hymavathi Devi-the respondent laid the suit in O.S.No.206 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to declare her title to the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the appellants 1 and 2 from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the same. Alternatively, relief of possession was also sought at a later stage during the course of trial in the suit, evicting the appellants 1 and 2 from the plaint schedule property.

4. The property described in the plaint schedule is as follows:

“Vacant site measuring 785.33 sq.yards or 656.364 Sq.mtrs. covered by plot No.14 of the approved lay out in s.No.62/2 in block No.6 of Waltair ward of Visakhapanam Town and bounded as follows:

East : Site covered by plot No.15 of the layout

South : 30 feet road

West : Site covered by Plot No.12 purchased by Sri Prasada Rao and plot No.13

North : Site belonging to the Andhra University

Measurements:

East : 108’ or 32.92 mtrs.

South : 65’ or 19.81 mtrs.

West : 109’ or 32.00 mtrs

North: 65’ or 19.81 mtrs.”

It shall be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit site’, for convenience.

5. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court by the decree and judgment dated 05.08.2011. A.S.No.142 of 2011 was preferred thereupon, by the respondent, the decree and judgment of the trial Court were reversed.

6. Hence, this second appeal by the Legal Representatives of the original defendants.

7. Smt. Rani Chandramathi Devi and her son Sri Andra Hari Hara Gara Pratapraju, residents of Andra Village, erstwhile Taluq of Salur, Srikakulam District (presently, Vizianagaram District) known as Zamindars of Andra (not Andhra) owned Ac.4-15 cents in S.No.62/2, Block No.6 of Waltair ward of Visakhapatnam. A layout was made out dividing this entire extent into twenty (20) plots. This layout was approved in T.P.No.57 of 1965 and T.P.No.15 of 1969 by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad.

8. It was the contention of the respondent at the trial that she purchased the suit site from these original owners, which is in plot No.14 for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 16.08.1969. Her further contention at the trial was that the appellants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit site claiming it, to raise a compound wall. She further contended that on account of her long possession and enjoyment of the suit site she also perfected her title to it by adverse possession. Therefore, according to the respondent, she was constrained to lay the suit for the reliefs stated above.

9. The appellants 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the respondent contending that the sale deed in favour of the respondent dated 16.08.1969 is a collusive document obtained to defeat their rights in respect of the property purchased by them under an agreement for sale dated 13.08.1965 from Sri Andra Hari Hara Gara Pratapraju, Zamindar of Andra covering 1000 Sq.yards and that on the default of the vendor to execute a sale deed, she was constrained to lay a suit in O.S.No.431 of 1969 for specific performance. Their further contention was that the above suit was decreed on 29.07.1978 pursuant to which a sale deed was executed in her favour by the Court on 08.03.1982 and that possession of the property covered by this sale deed was delivered through the process of the Court by the Court Amin on 16.07.1982.

10. Further contention of the appellants 1 and 2 at the trial was that plot No.14 claimed by the respondent was not within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule and that the respondent and her husband mani