A plaintiff must prove possession and dispossession to recover land; failure results in presumption of adverse possession for defendants, especially when a minor's prior sale deed is deemed void.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – appellants – defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2002 in A.S.No.14 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (I Fast Track Court), Nalgonda confirming the orders of the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District in O.S.No.125 of 1994 dated 30.01.1999.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The respondent – plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4-06 guntas in Survey No.200/A situated at Pannalagudem, Nakrekal Village, Nalgonda District. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that she was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The defendants were strangers and they had no manner of right whatsoever over the suit land. The defendants had land adjacent to the suit land. The defendants cultivated the suit land during the years 1972-73, 1974-75, 1980-81 and 1989- 90 having taken the same from the plaintiff on crop sharing basis. During the other years, the plaintiff personally cultivated dry crops namely mustard, jowar, etc. in the suit land. Originally, the suit land belonged to her father by name Pannala Lingaiah. The father of the plaintiff died 30 years ago. At that time, the plaintiff was five years old. Being his sole legal heir, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit land and other lands. The plaintiff’s elder paternal aunt by name Tukkanna Lakshmamma brought up the plaintiff and performed her marriage 20 years ago. Prior to the marriage, the said Tukkanna Lakshmamma was managing the suit land on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendants had land, house and agricultural well on the western side of the suit land. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff on 02.06.1993, the defendants illegally occupied the suit land and started cultivating the same. The defendants were also trying to get the patta of the suit land transferred in their name without the knowledge and behind the back of the plaintiff in the revenue records. Having come to know about the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in Case No.E/5459/1993 on the file of RDO, Nalgonda and got cancelled the patta granted in favor of the defendants by the MRO, Nakrekal on 30.06.1994. The defendants were making false propaganda in the village that they purchased the suit land. Infact the defendants had no right over the suit land. The plaintiff several times demanded the defendants to vacate and deliver the possession of the suit land. The defendants with the help of unsocial elements were threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences. The plaintiff was also paying land revenue of the suit land continuously to the Government. She was compelled to approach the Court for recovery of possession of the suit land. She stated that the cause of action arose on 02.06.1993 when the defendants illegally occupied the suit land and refused to deliver the possession to her. She stated that the suit was filed within limitation and prayed to decree the suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement contending that though the plaintiff inherited the suit property from her late father, she sold the same to defendant No.1 for a consideration of Rs.1,900/- on 10.12.1968 and also delivered possession of the same. Since then, the defendant No.1 was in actual possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 never cultivated the su