IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish her title, and findings from previous litigation regarding adoption and possession are binding.

JUDGMENT :

B. SYAMSUNDER, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 135 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam is the appellant. The respondent is the defendant in the suit.

2. Originally, the suit was filed by the appellant, represented by her General Power of Attorney Holder for declaration of her title to the suit schedule property, for eviction of the defendant, and for future profits and costs.

3. The appellant and the respondent hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant, stating that she is the absolute owner of 315 square yards of site, situated in Marripalem village, covered by Patta No. 284 in RS No. 90/4 of Visakhapatnam District. The plaintiff submits that a total extent of 464 square yards, part of which is the schedule property was purchased by her from one Mr. P. Venkata Rao under original of Ex.A9/registered sale deed, dated 10.03.1981 along with thatched house therein, and the plaintiff took possession of the property from her vendor, and she was in continuous enjoyment and possession of the property till June, 1997. It is the contention of the plaintiff that her vendor Mr. P. Venkata Rao and his wife Smt P. Mahalakshmi purchased 920 square yards of site each from one Mr. M.Jagannadha Swamy and Mr. Sudarshana Swamy through two separate sale deeds (Exs.A1 and A2) on 14.06.1974 and in total they purchased 1840 square yards of site under two registered sale deeds, which is in RS No. 90/4 of Marripalem village. The plaintiff submits that said Mr. P. Venkata Rao and his wife died issueless and Smt P. Mahalakshmi died in or about the year 1977, and after the death of his wife, her property was devolved on her husband Mr. P. Venkata Rao and during his life time he sold different extent of site to different persons, and in total Mr. P. Venkata Rao sold 2007 square yards, which is 167 square yards more than what was really possessed by him and his wife Smt P. Mahalakshmi. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that she filed OS No. 75 of 1987 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam for declaration of her title to the property purchased by her from Mr. P. Venkata Rao under original of Ex.A9/sale deed for the site to an extent of 464 square yards, wherein the Court passed decree in her favour, declaring her right to the site to an extent of 315 square yards only, out of total extent of 464 square yards, which Judgment became final. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant has filed OS No. 242 of 1991 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam against her and her brother Mr. Durga Prasad, seeking permanent injunction on the basis of their alleged right and possession, on the ground that she said to be purchased the site from one Mr. P. Venkata Siva Subbaraman, under registered sale deed, dated 22.01.1985, on the ground that said Mr. P. Venkata Siva Subbaraman is said to be the adopted son of Mr. P. Venkata Rao, who is the vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that the defendant said to be purchased to an extent of 563 square yards from said Mr. P. Venkata Siva Subbaraman, wherein the boundaries of the site have been shown, which are same as to the present suit schedule land, which is purchased by her under original of Ex.A9/sale deed from one Mr. P. Venkata Rao. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that she contested the suit filed by the defendant for permanent injunction, wherein she stated that Mr. P. Venkata Siva Subbaraman is not the adopted son of Mr. P. Venkata Rao and even if he is the adopted son of Mr. P. Venkata Rao, who left nothing to sell the site, as he sold excess site than he had during his life time, but the said suit was decreed in favour of the defendant on 04.03.1997, against which the plaintiff said to be preferred an appeal in AS No. 177 of 1997 on the file of V Additional District Ju