JUDGMENT :

Plaintiffs in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

2. An extent of Ac.0.18 cents in RS.No.493/5 and an extent of Ac.0.13 cents in RS.No.493/4 altogether Ac.0.31 cents of land in Gollapudi, Ibrahimpatnam Sub-Registry, Vijayawada is the property in dispute. Over that property plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1374 of 2002 before learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of the same and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish a wall constructed by them shown as A.D. in the plaint plan and for costs and such other reliefs. Defendants filed their written statement and resisted it. After due trial, by a judgment dated 06.11.2007 the learned trial Court decreed the suit with costs granting all the reliefs.

3. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s judgment, the defendants in the suit preferred their first appeal in A.S.No.274 of 2007 and learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada heard the contentions on both sides and by a judgment dated 04.06.2012 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and finally, dismissed the suit.

4. It is against that judgment of the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs in the suit are here with this second appeal.

5. On 07.10.2015 a learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. “Whether the Court below was in error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of adverse possession though there is no pleading in the defence of the defendants in that regard and by mis applying the provision of Article 65 of the Limitation Act?

2. Whether the judgment of the Court below is vitiated for accepting exhibit B1 which is an unregistered document and inadmissible in evidence?

3. Whether the Court below was in error in not deciding the appeal in accordance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code?”

6. Before this Court learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments and filed written submissions and cited legal authorities.

7. In the plaint, it is stated that both the plaintiffs are brothers to each other and were sons of late Venkateswara Rao. The plaint schedule property was their ancestral property. There was partition of that property during the life time of father of the plaintiffs and their junior paternal grandfather. The plaint schedule property and some other properties subsequently came to the share of the plaintiffs and they have been enjoying them.

8. On 12.05.1993 sale of certain properties in favour of the defendants took place concerning Ac.1.15 cents of land of Smt. Sita Ratnamma, who is mother of the plaintiffs, and Ac.0.25 cents of land in RS.No.493/5. There remained the plaint schedule property, which was a pond used for drinking water for the family members as well as water useful for cattle. The defendants also purchased various properties from various others and all of them abut the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs have been residing at different places. Taking advantage of this fact, the defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule land and filled up the pond and constructed a wall in or about the year 1993. That is shown in red colour demarcating as ABCD in the plaint plan. Thus, defendants occupied and encroached Ac.0.31 cents, which is shown in the plaint plan which belonged to the plaintiffs. Since the absolute rights of the plaintiffs are trampled and since the defendants failed to positively respond and rectify their mistakes, the present suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to demolish the wall.

9. In the written statement, defendants denied the case set up in the plaint and stated that plaintiffs have absolutely no property either by the time of filing of suit or earlier to it and the proper