IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of adverse possession is mutually destructive of plea of title.

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.—This appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 31.12.1996 in OS.No.11 of 1996 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. For the sake of convenience as this is a first appeal, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as in the lower Court only.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 5 initially. Later defendant Nos.6 to 11 were added as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.5.

4. The plaint is filed by one P.Lakshmi Narasayamma claiming a relief of declaration and a consequential relief of delivery of possession after evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule land and for other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the property under a sale deed of August, 1965 from one Korea Bai. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is the watchman/caretaker of the property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are sons while defendant No.4 is the brother of defendant No.1. Defendant No.5 is a purchaser of the suit schedule property from the defendants. His legal representatives were added as defendant Nos.6 to 11. The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of the sale deed and she claimed for possession and recovery. Defendant No.1 set up an independent title and enjoyment of the property on his own. In his written statement, he took the plea that the plaint schedule property was initially enjoyed by one Pentaiah, who had a daughter by name Narasamma. The said Pentaiah bought Durgayya the father of defendant Nos.1 and 4 as an illatom son-in-law and therefore, after the death of Pentaiah, the father of defendant Nos.1 and 4 inherited the property. He also described various acts showing his title to the property, and he also raised a plea that the defendant had perfected his title to the plaint schedule land by adverse possession or by inheritance also. He also stated that the defendant mortgaged the property in favour of a Bank as a guarantor for a loan obtained by S.Narasinga Rao. Thus, in all, he set up a plea of title and ownership for himself. Based on the said pleadings, the lower Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title and possession as prayed for?

(2) To what relief?

However, during the course of the judgment, the learned trial judge after reproducing the pleadings and evidence framed as many as four points in para 19 of the judgment and ultimately came to a conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove her title and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is this judgment that is now impugned in the appeal.

5. This Court has heard Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, both of whom argued the case with a great deal of preparation.

6. The facts which are not in dispute are that both the parties to the suit traced their title to one Korea Bai. Plaintiff has a sale deed and claimed possession and enjoyment on the basis of the sale deed while the defendants set up a claim of long possession of the very same property. The lower Court held that the possession of the defendants is clearly proved and that there is no explanation given why the original of Ex.A.1 sale deed is not filed. Therefore, in para 19, after a discussion, the Court below answered the case against the plaintiff.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff pointed out that the plaintiff has filed Exs.A.1 to A.14 to prove her case. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.08.1965 and the other documents Exs.A.2 to A.14 are tax receipts, title deed book, fair adangal, passbook etc., to prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. For the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 4 were examined. For the defendants, DWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 and EX.X.1 marked.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant pointed out that once a sale deed is filed along with other documents showing