THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU SECOND APPEAL NO.166 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This second civil appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.543 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. This appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC questioning the Judgment of the 1^st appellate Court, dated 17.04.2019, whereunder the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the above referred suit vide A.S.No.8 of 2014 was allowed, directing the appellant herein to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent.

2. Before adverting to the grounds on which the appeal is filed, the factual matrix of the suit as well as the appeal is as follows:

The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.543 of 2007 against the appellant herein for declaration of his title and sought for recovery of possession of property to an extent of Ac.3-35 gts situated at Cheekatimamidi Village. As per the schedule filed along with the plaint an extent of Ac.2-04 gts., from Sy.No.250/AA and Ac.1.31 gts of land from Sy.No.252/E of Cheekatimamidi village has been shown in the schedule. The respondent has claimed that he is owner and pattedar of suit schedule property, having purchased the same from the original owner by name Kummari Abbaiah through a registered sale deed in 1995. His name has been recorded as pattadar since 1996-97. He has obtained possession of the property. He got the property regularized in his favour before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugodu under the provisions of Records of Rights Act, 1971. He has obtained certificate under Section

13-B, patta pass book and title deeds during 1996.

3. The respondent has claimed that the entire suit schedule property was a dry land and as there was no water source, the suit property was left fallow and he had been to Mumbai city in search of livelihood. Subsequently, he was shifted to Hyderabad and in November, 2006 when he visited the native village with a view to alienate the schedule property and when he applied for certified copy of pahani, he has realized that name of appellant herein was recorded as possessor of the entire suit schedule property. The nature of the possession of the appellant herein was shown as purchase. The respondent having claimed that he never alienated the property in favour of the appellant herein filed this suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession.

4. The appellant herein made her appearance before the trial Court and filed written statement claiming that the respondent was never shifted to any other place, he was very much present in the village and actively participating in the political activities. She has further claimed that she purchased the suit schedule property from the respondent herein for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and obtained receipt from the respondent. She was put in possession of the property. Her name was recorded as possessor in the revenue records. The respondent has filed the suit with false averments. She has also claimed that even if the respondent claims that he was illegally dispossessed from the suit schedule property, he must have filed the suit within 6 months from the date of alleged dispossession. In order to seek the relief of declaration, he should have better and marketable title along with possession over the property. The appellant herein has also claimed before the trial Court that in view of the above stated circumstances, the respondent though filed suit for injunction vide O.S.No.111 of 2007 did not prosecute the said suit and not pressed the same. However, he did not state anything about the earlier suit while filing the present suit. Thereby, he approached the Court with unclean hands and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above contentions, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitl