JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.17 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, dated 20.02.2004, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.217 of 1992 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, dated

21.03.2000.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit No.217 of 1992 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Palakol.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.217 of 1992 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, with a prayer for possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and sites appurtenant thereto after evicting the 2nd defendant and her men and also for payment of present and future profits for the house portion.

4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, decreed the suit by granting possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and sites appurtenant thereto and the 2nd defendant and her men are directed to vacate the same within three months from the date of decree, failing which, plaintiffs are at liberty to get the possession of the same through process of law. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.217 of 1992, is as follows:

The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Penmetsa Bapiraju, son of Subbaraju. He had executed a registered settlement deed dated 01.09.1981 by settling his property in favour of his brother's son i.e., the 1st plaintiff and his wife i.e., the 2nd plaintiff and also to his wife for their enjoyment during their life-

time and later to the children of the plaintiffs. However, the wife of donor Penmetsa Bapiraju was given right to enjoy only X, X-1 and X-2 portion of the house and sites appurtenant to the same during her life-time. The said Penmetsa Bapiraju died on 21.08.1984, but lived in some portion of the house covered by the settlement deed along with his wife till the date of his death. However, the said donor Bapiraju executed the registered sale deed along with his wife and one Penmetsa Bapiraju (junior), who is claiming that he is the adopted son of late Penmetsa Bapiraju, in respect of Plaint ‘A’ schedule property on 11.07.1983 for a consideration of Rs.74,000/-, in favour of 2nd defendant without having any right to alienate the property by the virtue of the settlement deed. But the 2nd defendant was inducted into possession of the plain ‘A’ schedule property by the virtue of the registered sale deed and the 2nd defendant being not a bonafide purchaser not entitled to claim any right over the plaint A schedule property under the sale deed dated 11.07.1983. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the recovery of possession of plaint 'A' schedule property after evicting the 2nd defendant and her men therefrom. The plaintiffs also questioned the alleged adoption of one Penmetsa Bapiraju (junior) and his right to alienate the property covered by the settlement deed.

7. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died. The 2nd defendant resisted the suit by filing her written statement by denying all the averments in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable under law.

8. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are as follows:

The 2nd defendant though admitted the relationship between the parties, she denied the execution of registered settlement deed dated 01.09.1981 in favour of plaintiffs, their sons and 1st defendant and the same was acted upon. She claimed