1. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.

2. The only substantial question of law raised by Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant in the Second Appeal, Sri A. Govindraj Goud, the unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is as hereunder :
"Whether there was service of notice in accordance with law under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882 (for short 'the Act') on the appellant / defendant?"

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also by the lower appellate Court. The learned counsel also had traced the historical background and would maintain that in view of the compromise entered into in a prior litigation, the appellant as defendant had handed over possession of mulgie No. 2-101/8 and he is continuing in occupation of one mulgie bearing No. 2-101/9 only, which is the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel would maintain that it is not as though the respondent / plaintiff is not aware of these facts but despite the same deliber