JUDGMENT:

This is a defendant’s appeal. Cuddapah District Non-

Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society owned property for house sites and got the layout approved by the Government. The plots were allotted to its members. A small strip of land between plot Nos.317 and 318 fell in dispute. Plot No.317 has on its southern boundary the plot No.318. Alleging that the 6 feet width of plot No.317 was encroached upon by the persons pertaining to plot No.318, the owner of plot No.317 Smt. Kunda Ranganayakamma laid O.S.No.298 of 1990 before learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddapah. In the plaint it is stated that ‘HGCD’ shown in the plaint plan is the encroached portion and that belonged to her and therefore, she sought declaration of her title over the said encroached portion of property and sought recovery of possession of the same and also sought mandatory injunction directing the owner of plot No.318 to remove a compound wall constructed along ‘GH’ line and superstructure over the occupied ‘HGCD’ site. Originally it was laid as against defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are spouses to each other. It is stated that together defendants owned plot No.318. During the pendency of the suit, as the original defendants sold out the property, the purchaser was impleaded as defendant No.3. Defendants filed their written statements. The essence of the defence is that they never encroached into the property of the plaintiff and they have been holding possession over plot No.318 with rightful title and even if there is any encroachment as alleged, these defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession and sought dismissal of the suit.

2. Learned trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of the property shown as HGCD in the plaint plan?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction?

3. To what relief? Additional Issues:

1. Whether the 3rd defendant perfected his title to suit property by adverse possession?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. To what relief?

3. There is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.7. The report and plan submitted by the advocate commissioner became Exs.C.1 and C.2.

4. After considering the material on record and the contentions raised on both sides, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and it granted all the reliefs that are prayed in the plaint.

5. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.3 alone preferred A.S.No.7 of 1996. Learned II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah framed the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court went wrong in holding that the defendant has not examined T.Sreenivasula Reddy the original seller and adverse possession pleaded by the defendant is proved?

2. Whether the defendants encroached the plaintiff’s plot to an extent of 6 feet, shifted car shed and put up compound wall?

3. Whether the defendants are entitled for the benefit of Section 51 of Transfer of Property Act?

4. To what relief?

6. After due hearing on both sides and after furnishing reasons, it found no merit in the appeal and it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.3 preferred this appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The sole plaintiff in the suit is shown as respondent No.1. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit are shown as respondent Nos.2 and 3.

8. On 19.10.2001 this second appeal was admitted by a learned Judge of this Court on formulating the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant amounts to admission of title to the plaintiff and if so whether the burden does not lie on the plaintiff to prove her title to the property?”

9. Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant fervently argued that by virtue of Exs.B.1 to B.4-registered sale deeds, the appellant and his predecessors in title/defendant No.1 and defenda