The claimant must establish continuous, open, and peaceful possession to prove adverse possession, which the court found unmet in this case.

JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, assailing the decree and judgment, dated 07.08.2002, passed in A.S.No.79 of 2001 on the file of the Addl.Senior Civil Judge, at Ananthapuram (old A.S.No.9/1997 on the file of District Judge, Ananthapuram).

2. Heard Sri N. Chandrasekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants. Heard Sri Pratap Narayana Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Gorla Manasa, learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. The appellants are legal representatives of the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents No.1 to 4 are the defendants in the suit. The parties in the Second Appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as arraigned in the Original Suit, for convenience and clarity.

4. The suit in O.S.202/1991 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, was instituted seeking the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The plaint schedule consists of Ac.4-86 cents of land in K.No.227 in S.No.172 of Kakkalapalli Village of Ananthapur Mandal.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.1996. The 2^nd defendant preferred appeal in A.S.9/1997 on the file of District Judge, Ananthapuram. Later, the appeal transferred to the Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram and re-numbered as A.S.79/2001. The learned Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram vide judgment and decree dated 07.08.2002 partly allowed the appeal with regard to Ac.0-86 cents of land, out of Ac.4-86 cents of land. Dismissed the rest of the appeal. Therefore, the plaintiffs preferred the Second Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Ananthapuram with respect to Ac.0-86 cents of land. The 2^nd defendant did not prefer any Second Appeal regarding dismissal of the 1^st appeal with respect to Ac.4-00 of land.

PLEADINGS:

6. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is owner of the plaint schedule property. Originally it belongs to the 1^st defendant; the 1^st defendant sold an extent of Ac.4-50 cents of land, in S.No.172 to Sri M.Nagendra Gowd, G.Subbarayudu and B.Hanumanthappa on 16.05.1998 and put them in possession; the 1^st defendant permitted purchasers to use the cart track existed on the northern side of the remaining land; the purchasers have been using the cart track, as conveyed under the sale deed;

Later, the 1^st defendant executed a gift deed on 02.05.1972 in favour of the plaintiff, the daughter-in-law of the 1^st defendant for Ac.4-00 of land in S.No.172; the plaintiff accepted the gift on 02.05.1972; the property was delivered to the plaintiff on the same day by the 1^st defendant; the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the land from the date of gift; the plaintiff also enjoying the remaining Ac.0-86 cents land, in S.No.172 from the date of gift deed; the plaintiff perfected her title to the said property, by adverse possession; the plaintiff obtained a loan from Ananthapuram Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited, mortgaging the property, for the purpose of digging well; the plaintiff has been cultivating the land personally; the name of the plaintiff was also mutated in revenue records.

The 1^st defendant died leaving the defendants No.2 to 4, as legal representatives; there are no cordial terms between the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 4; they are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property; the plaintiff came to know that the 1^st defendant cancelled the gift deed dated 02.05.1972, by a document dated 20.03.1991; the plaintiff also came to know that the 1^st defendant sold an extent of Ac.0-86 cents of land in favour of the 2^nd defendant on 22.04.1991; the cancellation deed and the sale deed executed by the 1^st defendant are sham and nominal documents; th