The High Court · 2025

5.1. The plaintiff, Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao and Late Lakkineni Satyanarayana Das are the three sons of Late Lakkineni Pullaiah and Late Lakkineni Ademma. Lakkineni Pullaiah died in the year 1968 and Lakkineni Ademma predeceased Pullaiah in the year 1967. Lakkineni Satyanarayana Das died in the year 1985. The defendant is the elder son and one Lakkineni Srikaran Pavan Kumar is the younger son of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao.

5.2. The family of the plaintiff was owning lands and other properties at Kalluru and Laxmipuram Village of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. After the death of Lakkineni Pullaiah and Lakkineni Ademma, the lands at Kalluru Village were paftitioned on 07.02.1971 and the lands at Laxmipuram Village were partitioned on 20.07.1989. Dry lands admeasuring Ac.06-32 gts in Sy.No.144/AA and Ac'3-37 gts in Sy.No.145/AA of Laxmipuram Revenue Village fell to the share of the plaintiff, necessary mutation has taken place in the Revenue Records with regard to the above said lands and ROR Title Deed and ROR Pattadar Passbooks were issued. The suit land is of [-axmipuram Revenue Village. The plaintiff by virtue of his employment was residing away from Laxmipuram and Kalluru Village, his elder brother by name sl36 I]RIvlR,J AS.No.l46-2020 Lakklneni Venkateswar Rao was managing the suit schedule property on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant being the elder son of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao was assisting his father and managing the propefty on behalf of the plaintiff and they never had rights over the sarne. Due to the advancing age and ill-health of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao, the elder brother of the plaintiff expressed his inability to manage the suit property and the praintiff had retired from service, he himself started managing the same from 1990_1993.

5.3. The defendant tried to interfere over the suit schedule property thereby the plaintiff has filed suit in OS.No. 174 of 2OO2 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court at Sathupalli for perpetual Injunction. Defendant has taken a false plea in the written statement in OS.No.174 of 20O2 that the plaintiff agreed to sell the property through Agreement of Sale, dated 10.0g.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- and that the defendant paid entire sale consideration to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not executed any Agreement of Sale in favour of the defendant on 10.08.1996. The suit in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court at Sathupalli for perpetual Injunction was dismissed on 2|.IL.2OO7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, plaintiff has filed First Appeal vlde AS.No.2 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Sathupalli which also came to be dismissed on 08.09.2009. Encouraged by the said judgment and decree in AS.No.2 of 2008, the defendant occupied the suit schedule property on 15.09.2009 highhandedly. 6136 ,3RMR,J AS.No.146-2020

5.4. The two Courts dealt with the aspect of possession as the suit is being one for Injunction Simplicitor. The present suit being the comprehensive one seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, the judgment and decree in OS.No.174 of 2002 and AS.No.2 of 2008 do not operate as res judicata and prayed to decree the suit.

6.1. Defendant filed his written statement contend,ng that the plaintiff has alienated Ac.0-32 gts., out of Ac.06-32 gts., in Sy. No.144lAa of Laxmipuram Village to one Manne Rambabu and delivered possession. The plaintiff gave evidence in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 as PW.1 and he confirmed that his claim is for Ac.06-00 gts., of land. The Eastern boundary is not that of L.Satish Kumar land but it ls the land of his mother L.Krishna Bhavani. On the West side of the suit property, there is joint family property of defendant's father and younger brother. The plaintiff and legal heirs of L.Satyanarayana Das have got no land on the Western side. Further L.Ramabrahmaiah has no iand on the Northern side of the suit property, such property belongs to Ch.Sesha Charyulu.

6.2. The plaintiff suppressed the existence of Palm Oil plantations aged !2 years in the suit schedule property and simply claimed the dry land. The plaintiff executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the defendant on 10.08.1996 to an extent of Ac.06-00 gts., for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,80.000/-. The defendant paid the entire sale 7136 tsRMR..' AS.No.l46_2020 consideration on the date of agreement and the terms were reduced into writing and delivered the possesslon of the said land. The nomenclature oF the document is wrongly shown as .,Vikraya Dastaveju" instead it was only Agreement of Sale. From the date of agr'eement, the defendant is in possession of the property. In the year 1997, he raised Green Gram and Red Gram. In the year 199g, he obtained necessary electricity connection in his name and fixed 5 Hp Motor and Pumpset which was installed undeftunnel of NSp Canal to draw water and he was cultivating the schedule property either personally or through his tenant. On 13.11.199g and 17.11.199g, he purchased 70 Palm Oil saplings from Nursery maintained by the A.p. Co-operative Oil Seeds Cooperation Federation Limited and he planted the same, they are 12 years of age. The plaintiff in collusion with defendant's father did not co-operate in executing the registered sale Deed and that the defendant is entitled for protection of property under section 53-A of Transfer of property Act and the suit is barred by limitation, prayed to dismiss the same. 7 The Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property? 2. Whether the defendant is entiued to protect his possession as per Secuon 53A of Transfer of property Act? 3, Whether relief is barred by limitation? 4. To what relief.) 8136 I}RMR,J AS.No.146-2020

8. Plaintiff is examined as PW'1, got examined PW.2 (Lakkineni Venkateswara Rao); PW.3 (MRO Kalluru); PW.4 (S.S.Vedanayakam); PW.5 (P.Vijaya Shankar) and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Defendant is examined as DW.1, also examined DW.2 (Danekala Subba Rao) and got marked Exs.81 to B33.

9. The Trial Couft after going through the evidence led by the parties and after perusing documents thereon has decreed the suit in part with costs which is set out as under: i) ii) ii) Thr: plaintiff is declared as owner of the suit schedule land to an extent of Ac'6-00 guntas forming part of sy.No.144lAA situated at Lakshmipuram Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Ac.6-00 gts., of the suit schedule property from the defendant. The defendant is directed to deliver possession of such property to plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment. Failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of property through.Court.

10.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Judge ought to have seen that the appellant has clearly pleaded and proved Ex.B1 bry:.adducing oral and documentary evidence and that the possession of the appellant is protected by virtue of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act and that the appellant was in peaceFul 9136 BRMR,J AS-No.l46,202O possession and enjoyment of the same since 10.0g.1996 (Ex.B1). The suit is not maintainable and barred by law.

10.2. The Trial Court failed to record clear finding with regard to Ex.81 and ought to have framed issue to adjudicate the validity of the same. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the earlier pleadings and judgment in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 and AS.No.2 of 2008 which were .marked as Exs.B4 and 85 to determine the maintainability of the present suit. The respondent-pla intiff ls estopped in seeking recovery of possession in view of the earlier litigation and relied on Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala and Othersl prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.28 of 2OtO, dated L7.t2.2019 (impugned order).

11. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the parties with that of the documents marked thereon and rightly decreed the suit in proper prospective and it does not require interference of this Court. In support of his contentions he relied on the decisions in respect of Sections 53 and 54 of Transfer of property Act and Article 65 of Limitation Act and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. The decision cited will be referred in the succeeding paras with that of the contentions raised in the written arguments. ' (2020) 19 SCC 57 = 2O2O SCC Ontine sc 675 BRMR,J AS.No.I46 2020

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his arguments to the extent that the suit is barred by limitation.

13. Appellant's counsel and respondent's counsel have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions.

74. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.

15. Now the points for consideratlon are : L. Whether the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the impugned judgment of the Trial Court in OS.No.28 of 2010, dated 17.12.2019 suffers from any perversity or illegality and requires interference of this Court or not?

16. There is no dispute with regard to the relation of the parties and with regard to the partition of the properties by the respondent- plaintiff with that of his brothers. Point Nos.1 and 2: t7. Plaintiff has filed suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendant and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property i.e., dry land to an extent of Ac.06-32 gts., in Sy.No.l44lAA. The cause of action shown in the suit is from 11.06.2000, 10.07.2OO2, 22.O9.2OO2 and on 27.O9.2OO2 at Laxmipuram Village. Suit is flled on 10.10.2002 vlde OS.No'174 of Ltl36 BRMR,J AS.No.l46_2020 2OO2. Defendant has filed his written statement and contested the suit contending that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since 10.08.1996 under Agreement of Sale. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli after recording the evidence of the parties has dismlssed the suit of the plaintiff yHe judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 (Ex.Be.

18. .. The observation of the Junior Civil Judge at Sathupalli in Ex.B4 are at Para Nos.9, 12 which is set out as under: Para No.9: "As per the contention of pws.1 and 2, the plaint schedule property is ancestral property, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Ex.Bl ls a forged one and came into existence and the defendant influenced the revenue people and mutated his name in the revenue records. On that the plaintiff also filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra pradesh vrde WP.No.203O4/20O3, dated 18.08.2003 about assessing the possession of plaint schedule property, on that the Hon,ble High Court gave direction to Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalluru on 29.06.2004 directing him to send a detailed report whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property oi not ? On that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalluru conducted detailed enquiry and submitted a report i.e., Ex,B26 statino that the orioinal oattedar is Dlaintiff and the Dossesso r is defendant since, 1997. It is a fundamental principle in injunction suits the party must have possession over the plaint schedule property at the time of filing of the suit, but the evidence and documents available on record, and Ex.826 the report of Mandal Revenue Officer is clearly and clinchingly shows that the plaintiff is only pattedar not a possessor at the time of filing of the suit. On the other hand, the defendant has proved that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by producing Exs.B1 to 835, the relevant documents to show that he is r2136 F}RMR,J AS.No.l46-2020 in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since L997 . Para No.12: As per the contention of the plaintiff Ex.B1 is the rank forged one, the signature on Ex.B1 does not belong to him. On that he filed IA.No.2l7 of 2OO5 for hand writing expert under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act. As per the contention of plaintiff that Ex.B1 is rank forged one. Therefore. the signature of Ex.81 and his specimen signatures may be sent to hand writing expert for comparision. In that petition, the defendant also filed counter stating that he has no objection to send Ex.81 along with specimen signature of the plaintiff, in the Ex.81 the plaintiff put his signature as L.Suryanarayana, but in the Plaint and Vakalathnama he put his signature as L.S.Narayana and therefore, the "L" and "S" on the plaint and Vakalathnama are compared with the "L" and "S" on Ex.B1. But after long time the plaintiff not pressed the petition i.e., IA.No.217 of 2005, dated 08.10.2007, accordingly, the said petition was disrnissed as not pressed. If at all the contention of the plaintiff is true and genuine one, that Ex.B1 is rank forged one, the signature does not belong to him why the plaintiff has not pressed the petition For sending signatures to hand writing expert, for the reason best known to him".

19. The extent and boundaries shown in Ex.82 (plaint in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli) is as under: "Dry land to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.144lAA situated at Laxmipuram village (Balla Banjar) Kallu: Mandal. Khammam District bounded by East: land of Lakkineni Satheesh Kumar, lvest: land of Lakkineni Venkateswara Rao and brothers, North: Nagarjuna Sagar Main Canal, South: land of Lakkineni Ramabhadraiah".

20. The observations made in the judgment and decree in Ex.B4 with regard to the boundaries are at Para Nos.13, 14, 15 which is set Out as under : - 13136 BRMR.J AS.No.146 2O2O "13. As per the contention of the plaintiff. the plaint schedule property is bounded by East: Lakkineni Sateesh Kumar, \l{egt: Land of Lakkineni Venkateshwar Rao brothers, North: N.S.Canal and South: Land of Lakkinenl Rambhadraiah. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the plaint schedule property is bounded by the above said persons, but as per the contention of the defendant, the plaint schedule property boundaries mentioned in the plaint is not true and correct, the plaint schedule property is bounded by East: srl Krishna Bhavani, South: Chakravarthula Seshacharyulu, West: Lakkineni Venkateshwar Rao and his sons and North: N.S.Canal.

14.- Tflerefore. the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule property is not proved by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant has proved the plaint schedule property is bounded by the boundaries mentioned in the written statement.

15. The Court has appointed Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property. The Commissioner is also examined as DW.5, the report of Commissioner was marked as Ex.C2. As per the evidence of Commissioner, the plaint schedule property and boundaries tallied with the contention of the defendant and Commissioner also clearly mentioned in his report along with map". 2L. In so far as the extent of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 (Ex.82) the observations made in the judgment and decree in Ex.84 are at Para No.17 whlch is set out as under: "The plaintiff originally filed the suit for Acs.6-35 Gts, but in his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that Ac.0-35 Gts., is already sold out by him in the plaint schedule property. He is only claiming Acs.5.00 Gts".

22. Respondent-pla intiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree under Ex.B4 filed Appeal vrde AS.No.2 of 2008, which came to be 14136 BRMR.J AS.No. 146 -2020 dismissed under Ex.85. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli has concurred with the findings of the judgment and decree under Ex.84 and it also observes that Ex.826 document clearly establishes that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of rhe suit property in respect of land to an extent of Ac.04-00 gts., in Sy.No.144lAA/A and in respect of land in Sy.No.144lAA/A to an extent of Ac.02-00 gts., and finally the Appeal came to be dismissed.

23. The only point in the present Appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff is within limitation. The Trial Court has framed Issue No.3 as "whether the relief is barred by limitation".

24. The pleadings in the plaint in OS.No.28 of 2010 is at Para 4 which states that the First Appeal in AS. No.2 of 2008 was dismissed on

08.09.2009, encouraged by the said judgment and decree the defendant occupied the suit property on 15.09.2009 highhandedly.

25. The Trial Court has discussed the issue of limitation in Para Nos.25 ancj 26 of its judgment which is set out as under: " lssue No.3

25. Limitation for flling suit for possession is 12 years. The defendant claimed that the suit is barred since th€) possession was delivered under agreement of sale in the year 1996. The plaintiff had been contending that the agreement cf sale was forged and fabricated and no possession was delivered. While giving the findings on first and second issue, this Court has taken a view that no possession under agreement was delivered 1s/36 BRMR,J AS.No.146_2020 so as to relate the date of dispossession in the year 1996. The adangals for the year L997-98, 1998-99 and 199g-2ooo are said to have been destroyed and there is a cloud over the actual entries and such documents do not clinchingly establishes the defendant's possession. By virtue of findings in the previous suit the defendant's possession was with reference to the date of previous suit i.e., on 08.10.2002. 26. The contention of the plaintiff is that he was dispossessed by virtue of dismissal of his appeal which was filed against judgment and decree of trial court dismissing the plaintiff relief for injunction. He claimed that after dismissal of appeal, immediately he was dispossesed. The revenue records like adangals shows that defendant's possession from the institution of suit. Even the plaintiff failed to establish his dispossession in the year 2009. At the most the dispossession must be date of previous suit which is 2oo2. The present suit has been filed in the year zolo. Therefore, the suit is said to have been within limitation. Accordingly, this issue is also answered against the defendant".

26. In Nazir Mohammed casel, the Supreme court observed at para 47,49,50 and 51 which is set out as under: "4v.A -person'claiming a decree of possession has to establish his entitlement to get such possession and also establish that his claim is not barred by the laws of limitation. He must show that he had possession before the alleged trespasser got possession.

49. A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 3 of the Limitation Act bars the institution of any suit after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in the said Act. The court is obliged to dismiss a suit filed after expiry of the period of limitation, even though the plea of limitation may not have been taken in defence.

50.The period of limitation for suits for recovery of immovable property is prescribed in Part V of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and in particular Articles 64 and 65. L6136 BRN,IR,J AS.No.l r6-2020

51.In the absence of any whlsper in the plaint as to the date on which the Appellant-Defendant and/or his Predecessor-in- interest took possession of the suit property and in the absence of any whisper to show that the relief of decree for possession was within limitation. the High Court could not have reversed the finding of the First Appellate Court, and allowed the Respondent- Plaintiff the relief of recovery of possession. No Title to a opellant-defe ndant under Ex.B1:

27.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-pla intiff contended that c'*nei'ship over the suit schedule property is not disputed by the appellant, however, the a ppellant-defendant relies on the alleged "Vikraya Dastaveju" (Ex.81). No title document is in favour of the a ppella nt-defenda nt and mere Agreement of Sale does not confer title to him as it is an unregistered document and title does not pass: Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ancl Others2 Para Nos.27 and 29 which reads as under:

27. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines a "sale" as the transfer oF ownership in exchange for a price that is either paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised. This provision further describes the manner in which a sale is effected. It stipulates that, in the case of tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made only through a registered instrument. The use of the term "only" signifies that, for tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, a sale becomes lawful only when it is executed through a registered instrument. Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered. even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration' The registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to complete and vatidate the transfer. Until registration is effected, ownership is not transferred.

29. This Court in Babasheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde, SLP @ No.29462 of 2019 held that the conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in 'z izoz+1 scc online sC 4589 BRMR,J AS.No.146_2020 i, I - accordance with section L7 of the Registration Act, 200g. Till then, there is no conveyance in the eyes of law. 27-2. counsel further submitted that the alleged Agreement of sale (Ex.B1) though impounded does not confer title in absence of registration mandated under Section L7 r/w Section 49 of Registration Act. Appellant-defendant cannot claim any right over the suit property on the basis of Agreement of sale. Nothing precluded the appellant_ defendant from obtaihing proceedings under section 5-A of pattadar Pass Books Act, L97L; Nor filed a suit for specific performance, according to him the entire sale consideration is paid and he did not seek to enforce the same, appellant-defendant is not entiUed for protection of possession under section 53A of Transfer of property Act. The Trial court has given findings at para Nos.21 to 23 of its judgment. In order to claim protection under section 53A, appellant- defendant has to fulfill the conditions. Kamalabai Laxman pathak and others vs. onkar parsharam patit and otherd at para 6 which reads as under : In the case of Damodaran V. shekharan, AIR L993 Ker 242. The court has culled out virtualry in a layman's language the five requirements of section 53A of the Transfer oi property Act, which are extracted below:-- "(1) There should be a contract for the transfer of immovable property. (2) The contract should be in writing signed by the party sought to be charged therewith and from it the terms shourd be asceftainable with reasonable certainty. (3) The transferee should, in part performance of the contract, (a) take possession, or 3 RIR t995 Bom 113 18i 35 ARMR..J AS.No.146 2020 (b) continue in possession and do some act in Furtherance of the contract. (4) The transferee should perform, or be willing to perform, his part of the bargain as contained in the writing. (5) The application of the doctrine should not affect the right of a transferee for consideration without notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof."

27.3. Counsel submits that the appellant-defenda nt did not prove or establish delivery of possession under Ex.B1, See Giriyappa and Another Vs. Kamalamma and Others{ at Para No.11 :

11. a) b) c) From the aforesaid, it is evident that the prolection of a prospective pu rchaser/transferee of his possession of the pr)perty involved, is available subject to the following prerequ isites: There is a contract in writing by the transferor for transFer for consideration of any immovable property signed by him or on his behalf, from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; The transferee has, in part-performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract; The transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract and has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.

27.4. Respondent- plaintiff counsel further submlts that appellant- defendant failed to prove delivery of possession under Ex.Bl. The findings given'by the Trial Court in the previous suit i.e., OS.No.174 of 2002 that the:appellant was in possession of the schedule property was not on the basis of Agreement of Sale but on the basis of Ex.826 - Tahsildar Report who reported that the a ppella nt-defendant was in o 2024 9CC Online SC 3849 79136 BRMR,J AS.No. 146_2020 possession at the time of filing the suit. The Trial court in os.No.174 of 2OO2 did not examine that the alleged possession was permissive since the respondent-pra intiff was not in the vilage and had taken the help of PW.2 and his son DW.l (appellant herein) to look after his lands and also did not examine whether the appellant has delivered the possession on the basis of Ex.B1. Appeflant-defenda nt faired to prove the execution and genuinity of Agreement of Sale (Ex.B1).

27.5. Learned counsel further submits that alleged Agreement of Sale (Ex.B1) was forged and fabricated by the appella nt-defenda nt, to prove the same, PW.2 is examined who is the father of the appellant_ defendant. counsel further submits that the findings on the genuinity of Agreement of Sale in the previous suit operates as issue estoppel or not i.e., Ex.B4 (OS.No. t74 of 2002). The Trial Court in the previous suit has dealt with the issue other than the issue which were specifically framed and gave a finding on the genuinity oF the agreement when it was not warranted to do so and the issue of genuinity of Agreement of Sale does not operate as issue estoppel and that the Trial Court has rightly examined the genuiness of the agreement and held that the Agreement of Sale is not true and binding. Limitation

27.6. It is further submitted that Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the period of limitation for filing suit for recovery of 20136 BRMR,J AS.No. I46-2O2O possession, it is clear from the wording that the limitation period of L2 years applies only when the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession. In other words, if a plaintiff files a suit for recovery of possession based on his own title, the defendant has to prove that he had been in possession adverse to the plaintiff for the prescriptive period of 12 years. Appellant-defendant is not claiming adverse possession against the respondent-plaintiff, which is not taken in the written statement. Therefore, the limitation period of L2 years is not applicable to the case on hand. See Indira Vs. Arumugam and Anothef , Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.4 and 5 which reads as under: "4. The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge, with respect, cannot be sustained as it proceeds on the assumption as if old Article 742 of the earlier Limitation Act was in force wherein the plaintiff who based his case on title had to prove not only title but also possession within 12 years of the date of the suit. The said provision of law has undergone a metamorphic sea change as we iind under the Limitation Act, 1963 Article 65 which reads as under: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which Period beqins to run 65 For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Twelve years When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the olaintiff It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title 5. for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was missed by the learned Judge and, therefore, the entire reasoning for s (rggg) 1 scc 614 2r/36 BRMR,J AS.No.146_2020 disposing of the second appeal has got vitiated. only on that short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question of law framed by the learned Judge for disposing of the second appeal, this appeal is allowed. The impugned decision rendered is set aside and the second appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to proceed further with the hearing of the appeal with respect to the substantial question aforementioned in accordance with law. No costs,,.

27.7. In B.Koosappa Vs. P.Veerappa @ Koosappa 6 High Couft observed at Para 4 which reads as under: *4. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has drastically changed the earlier legal position. A plain reading of Article 65 would show that there is no limitation for institution of a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, if the defendant's possession is not adverse to the plaintiff; if the possession is adverse, the period of limitation is twelve years and limitation starts from the time when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff and not from the date of dispossession of the plaintiff as in Article 64. I may add that in a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, the claim of the true owner could be defeated only if the person in possession pleads and proves that he had perfected his tifle by adverse possession".

27.8. In Md. Abdul Hussain and Another Vs. Md. Akkash All and OthersT , High Court observed at Para No.4 which reads as under: "4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. I have also heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the judgment of both the Courts below. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy in this case are not in dispute. The admitted position is that the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs was based on title. It is also not disputed that the plaintiffs could succeed in proving their title. There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below to that effect. The it rrr:c fnr tho tn ho AaeidaA olaintiffs to prove that they had instituted the suit within 12 years from the date of dispossession or it was for the defendants to establish that they acquired title by adverse possession. The law on the point appears to be well settled. When a suit is for ic rerlralh rt h:c ar racf l 6 ILR ZOO9 Kar 4523 ' 199t 1 Gauhati Law Reports 244 22136 BRMR,.,I AS.No.146 2020 possession of immovable property and is based on previous possession and not on title Article 64 applies and when a suit is for possession of immovable property based on title then Article 55 applies. Article 64 enables a suit within 12 year from dispossession for possession of immovable property based on possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. Article 65 is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title (Nair Service Society ltd. v. K. C. Alexander (AIR 1968 SC 1165). The law, therefore. is that when a plaintiff brings a suit for possession of immovable property basing his suit on title and his title is established, then Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply and it would be the defendant's burden to prove that he acquired title by adverse possession. In other words, he would be required to prove that he has been in possession adversely over plaintiff for statutory period of 12 years. when, however, a plaintiff brings a suit for possession of immovable property but bases his suit on previous possession and not on title Article 64 applies: Hanjabam Babumacha Sharma (supra). Hence in a suit for possession of immovable property based on title the well settled legal position is that Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies and the burden is on the defendant to prove that he had acquired title by adverse possession".

27.9. Respondent-plaintiff's counsel further submits that in a suit for possession based on title Article 65 of Limitation Act shall apply; in a suit for possession based on tltle, once the plaintiff title is established the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession; there is no period of limitation under Article 65 if the defendants possession is not adverse to the plaintiff; the plaintiff need not prove his possession within 12 years from the date of the suit. In the present case, the claim for possession of the suit schedule property was based on title which is not disputed by the appellant- defendant. Therefore, the claim for possession is not barred by limitation and there is no limitation for such a claim. j 23136 BRMR,J AS.No.146_2O2O

27.Lo. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has filed additional written submissions on his behalf and contended that the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property are the same for 6 guntas even after the sale of 32 guntas which was elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1 and the boundaries can be compared with the boundaries pleaded in the written statement. Boundaries in the Plaint East Land of Lakkineni Satish Kumar Boundaries in the written statement pleaded at para 3 Lakkineni Sri Krishna Bhavani mother of Lakkineni Satish Kumar observation No change in eastern boundary West Land of Venkateswar Others Lakkineni Rao and Joint family propefty of Venkateshwara Rao and his family No change in western boundary North Nagarjun Sagar Main Canal There is no clear pleading as to the northern boundary South Land of Rambhadraiah Lakkineni Chakravarthi Seshacharyulu As per agreement of sale - Appellant's own document, the northern boundary shown by Appellant is also Canal In examination the Respondent (PW1) clearly states that the southern boundary is shared between C.Seshacharyulu and Ramabhadraiah.

27.1L. counsel submits that sale of Ac.00-32 guntas does not affect the existing boundaries of the suit schedule property and the claim is confined to Acs.06-00 gts., there was no occasion for amending the boundaries, it is settled law that boundaries prevail over the extent. 24136 BRMR,J AS.No.146-2020

28.1. The admission made by the plaintiff (respondent herein) in the course of his cross-exa mination is that the suit property is in respect of Acs.06-00 gts.. only in Sy.Nos.144 and 145 of Laxmipuram and he got Ac.O6-32 gts., in Sy.No.144lA/A, out of two survey numbers he sold thb entire land by keeping Acs.06.00 gts., to hls remembrance two persons got registered sale deed in respect of Acs'04-00 gts', of land' one among them is Mannem Ram Babu and he gave instructions to drafttheplaintinrespectofAc.06-00gts.,oflandandthesuitisfiled in respect of Acs.06-32 gts. Witness voluntarily stateo t he has claim in res oect of Ac.00-32 ots., of land and the land -qn-lhc-EEsteIn <idp r lit ca ro e rtv ic recorde .l in the n me of kkineni Srikrishna Bhavani in the Revenue Records. On the Southern side of the suit schedule property there are lands of Lakkineni Ramabhadraiah and Chakravarthla Sesha Charyulu, after filing the case he never visited the property and the Commissioner has taken note of the physical features of the land in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 '

28.2. PW.1 further stated in the cross-exam ination that on the Eastern side therein NSP Canal and the land is cultivated with same water unauthorisedly and he filed IA.No.217 of 2005 n OS'No'174 of 2002 on the file of lunior Civil Judge, Sathupalli to send the Agreement of Sale, dated 10.08.1996 to Expert for comparision of his signature with that of the Agreement of Sale and the petition was dismissed as not pressed. It is true that injunction suit filed by me was dismissed by giving a finding that I am not in possession of the property and that 2s136 BRMR,J AS.No.l46_2020 the defendant (appellant herein) is in possession. It is true that he filed an application before MRO, Kalluru stating that the name of the defendant is recorded in the Revenue Records as possessor and that is tobed eleted and his name to be in roorated m 1997 -1998 and he filed WP.No.10058 of 2004 for a direction to MRO, Kalluru to dispose of his petitlon. MRO gave orders on 18.03.2006 (Ex.B21) stating that he is the pattadar and the defendant is in occupation and he did not file any Appeal or Writ petition against the orders of MRO, dated 18.03.2006 and he do not know whether the name of the defendant (appellant herein) is continuing as occupant in the Revenue Records in respect of the suit plan.

28.3. PW.1 further went on to say that his name is not recorded as cultivator in respect of suit lands since 1996. witness adds that it is managed and he was not present at the suit propefty on 15.09.2009 on the date of cause of action, he sold the land to Manne Rambabu and another in the year 2OO4 and he can identify the hand-writing of Venkateswar Rao and his signatures if shown to him, witness is shown the Agreement, dated 10.08.1996 (81), he expressed that he cannot identify for want of spectacles. pW.1 denied the suggestion that he has executed Ex.Bl-Agreement of Sale in favour of the defendant (appellant herein) and he is in possession since then i.e., 10.08.1996. 26136 BRMR,J AS.No.146-2020

29.L. PW.2 is the brother of the respondent-pla intiff and father of appella nt-defendant he deposed that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts., in Sy,Nos.144 and L45 of Laxmipuram Revenue Village which is owned by PW.1 (respondent herein) and the land is bounded by East land of L.Sateesh, West remaining land of plaintiff and L.Satyanarayana Das, North-NSP Canal, South-Lakkineni Rambhadraiah. Defendant (appellant herein) has coerced him to draft the Agreement of Sale on 10.08.1996 taking advantage of the absence of PW.1 that the sale o1' the land is for Rs.1,80,000/-, the defendant has paid the entire sale consideration to PW.1 and that PW.1 had put the defendant in possession ofthe above said land on the same day. During that time, himself and the defendant were living jointly in one house, he persuaded the defendant that what he is doing is wrong and immoral but in vain. PW.1 was not present on 10.08.1996 and he did not sign the Agreenrent of Sale, the signature appearing on the Agreement of Sale drafted by him is not that of PW.l. and PW.1 has no need to sell the schedule property to anyone much less the defendant. Defendant is his eldest son and he is arrogant and greedy. PW.1 continued to be in physical possession of the suit property till the vear 2008 and the defendant has occupied the schedule property in the vear 2008 in the absence of PW.1.

29.2. 7n his cross-exa mination, he stated that he do not know whether the land on the Southern side is in possession of Charkravarthula Sesha Chari and do not remember whether the 27136 ARMR,J AS.No.146_202O Eastern side boundary is rand of Lakkineni srikrishna Bhavani, himself and the defendant rived joinfly tifl 15 years i.e. tiil about z00o and that he gave evidence in OS.No.174 of 2OO2. The writing on Ex.B1 is that of him, as per Ex.Bl the land was sold to defendant by plaintiff on 10.08.1996, he do not know whether the plaintiff received Rs.1,80,000/- on 10.08'1996 from the defendant in his presence and he did not go to the village for the past 10 years, the schedule property is vacant land, he do not know whether the defendant is in possession of the schedule property since the date of Ex.B1 and he did not inform the plaintiff at any time about the scribe of Ex.B1 and that the defendant has forced him to scribe the same. pw.2 denied the suggestion that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1996.

30. PW.3 is the Tahsildar of Kalluru Mandal and he deposed that the lands in Sy.No.L44/ AA/A,/1 and to an extent of Acs.4_35 gts., and Sy.No.l44/AA/A to an extent of Acs.2_00 gts., stands in the name of Lakkineni Suryanarayana ( respondent-plaintiff) for the year Lgg6_g7. The adangals for the year LggT-gB, 1998-99 and 2000_01 were not available in the office as the same were destroyed in the fire accident in the year 2013. The name of Lakkineni Ramesh (appellant herein) was incorporated in the possessory column in Sy.No.144IAA/A for the year 1999-2000, such entry was based on private sare transaction. Pahani for the year 2OO3-04,2005-06 to 2012_13 is in the names of Manne Rambabu to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts., and Ramesh to an 28136 t}RMR,J AS.No.146-2020 extent of Acs.04-00 gts., and Acs.02-00 gts., are present in the possessory column and in the pahani for the year 20O4-O5, the name of Lakkineni Suryanarayana and Ramesh are present in the possessory column. For the year 20t6-17, Sy. No.144IAA/AA to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts., stands patta in the name of Lakkineni Suryanarayana and in the possessory column the name of Lakkineni Ramesh is recorded. In his cross-exa mination, he could not identify the signature on the certified copy oF Ex.B8.

31.1. PW.5 is the Deputy Director, C.F.S.L., Hyderabad, his evidence is that case was allotted to him for examination and opinion. On preliminary examination of the signatures on Ex.A1, Ex.B1, Vakalath and Plaint it has been observed that there is a time gap of approximately 14 years between the Dispute and Admitted signatures. Moreover, the model and design of the signatures on Ex.B1 is different with that of the Admitted signatures. In order to assess the nature and extent of variations in the writing habits of Sri L.Suryanarayana, it is desirable to have his admitted genuine signatures near about of disputed signatures as well as the specimen signatures taken in open Court for further examination. He admitted the letter given by him on

06.08.2018 which is marked as Ex.C1. The signatures on the Plaint and Vakalath are of the year 2010. Ex.A1 does not contain any date or rssuance. 29136 BRMR,J AS.No.146 2020 Q:- Whether the Signatures on Exs.Al and 81 are different or not? Ans:- The model and designs of these two signatures are found different, it may be due to time gap or different penmanship. Q:- If the Signatures on Ex.Al is contemporaneous with the signature on Ex,81 what is your Opinion? Ans:- That is based on single signature I cannot express any opinion. To study the natural variations in the writing habits of a person it requires a few more signatures. 3l:2. In his cross-exa mination, he stated that the contemplatory signatures as requested by the Laboratory vrde Letter dated

06.08.2018 (Ex.Cl) were not received by the Laboratory and he has not given any report as he has not received any further documents and he has sent only a Letter and not a Report. Ex.C1 is the Letter and not a Repoft and it is not a conclusive Report.

32. The schedule given by PW.2 in his chief-affidavit for Acs.06-00 gts., of land in Sy.Nos.L44 and 145 of Laxmipuram Revenue Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District do not match with the Western boundary of the suit schedule property with that of the Western boundary mentioned by the witness. Suit schedule Property is in Sy.No.l44lAA whereas the Survey numbers mentioned by PW.z is in Sy.Nos.144 and 145.

33. Ex.81 is the Agreement of Sale, dated 10.08.1996. The schedule propedy shown therein is land admeasuring Acs.06-00 gts., in Sy.No.144lAA of Laxmipuram (Ralabanjara) Village, Kalluru Mandal, 30136 BRMR,J AS.No. t46-2020 the contents therein shows that the sellar (Lakkineni suryanarayana respondent- plaintiff) sold the property for his family necessities @ Rs.30.000/- per acre and the total sale consideration is Rs'1'80'000/- which is received by him by way of cash and from today onwards i'e'' 10.08.1996 he may enjoy the property with all absolute rights' The boundaries shown therein is East: land belongs to Moppidi Lalaiah' West: Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao, Nofth: NSP Main Canal, South: land beionging to Chakravathula Sesha Charyulu' It is to be noted that there are no witnesses to Ex.B1.

34. The evidence of DW.1 is the same with that of his written statement. In his cross-exa mination, he stated that as on the date of Ex.81 he was only getting the income through his salary and was not getting any income from agricultural lands and there are no witnesses to Ex.B1, there is no recital therein that the plaintiff (respondent herein) should execute the registered sale deed in his favour as and when he requested. The boundaries to the schedule property is East: Lakkineni Sri Krishna Bhavani and Muppidi Lalaiah, West: Lakkineni Venkateswara Rao and his sons, North: N'S'P' Canal and South: land of Chakravarthula Seshacharyulu. The Eastern boundary holder is now changed to one Mangya and he has not issued any notice nor filed suit for specific performance seeking execution of registered sale deed and he did not seek any mutation of patta of suit property in his name from the name of the plaintiff and foi issuance of ROR passbooks and title deeds. Witness adds that due to the pendency of the litigation he did 31136 BRMR,J AS.No. t46_2020 not do so. The scribe of Ex.B1 did not sign on it and he filed the certified copies of pahani for the year L997 -98 to 2006-07 relating to the suit schedule property and they were marked as Exs.B2 to 811 in OS.No.174 of 2OO2 and he do not remember whether the pahanies Were got returned and he do not remember whether there are any corrections and change in the ink in possessory column in the Note underneath the pahanies. For the first time, his name was entered in the possessory column of pahani in the year 1997 on the application given by him in the year 1996. In the year 1998, he obtained electricity connection and raised Palm Oil trees. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he has no title or lawful possession over the suit property, manipulated the records and highhandedly occupied the suit property in the year 2009 without any right and he is liable to deliver the possession.

35. Ex.88 is the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1997-98 to 2OO7 -08 which goes to show that the name of the appella nt-defendant is recorded in the possessory column to an extent of Acs.O6-OO gts.. Ex.B33 is the ceftified copies of pahanies for the year 2007-08 to 2010-11 and 2014-15 which shows that the name of the appellant- defendant is recorded in possessory column to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts., Ex.B31 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02 which supports the case of the appella nt-defendant that his name is recorded in the Revenue Records right from 1997-98. I I I l 32136 BRMR,J AS.No.146-2020

36. PW.1 in his crobs-examination has admitted that he made an application beFore the MRO, Kalluru stating that the name of the appellant-defendant is recorded in the Revenue Records as possessor and that has to [e deleted and his name has to be incorporated from 1gg7-g8 and htl further admitted that his name is not recorded as l cultivator in respect of the suit land since the year 1996. Witness adds that the appellpnt-defendant managed the Revenue Authorities' Respondent-plainiirt iurther admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present at the suit property on 15.09.2009 on the date of cause of action

37. When the appellant-defendant was cross-examined, he stated that he submitted copy of Ex.B1 before the Revenue Authorities in the year 1996 with a covering letter to mutate his name and his name was entered in the possessory column of the pahanies in the year L997 -

38.1. Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in SopanRao and Another Vs. Syed Mehmood and Otherss observed at Para 9 which reads as under: i.: '9. The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is t2 years. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the $it land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succiied unless he is held to have some title over the land. However, the main relief is of possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals wrth a suit for posseBsion of immovable property or any interest therein 81zors; 7 scc76 33136 t]RfoIR.J AS.No.I46 2020 based on title and the limitation is 12 years From the date when possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

38.2. The decision cited by the respondent.s counsel in para Nos.27.6 and 27.8 do not assist his case in view of the .3, Judge Bench of the Supreme Court which held that the main relief is of possession, therefore the suit will be governed by Article 65 of Limitation Act.

39. The admission made by the plaintiff (respondent herein) is sufficient to come to a conclusion that he is aware that the name of the appella nt-defenda nt is entered in the Revenue Records in the year

40. There is no dispute with regard to the title of the respondent- plaintiff and the burden is on the respondent-plaintifr to prove and establish that the appellant-defendant's possession is adverse to his title. Suit for recovery of possession based on title must be filed within 12 years from the date, the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 12 years period starts running when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the rightful owner. Respondent- plaintiff has admitted that since 1996, defendant's name is in possession column in respect of suit schedule property in the Revenue Records. In Ex.84, the learned lunior Civil Judge at Sathupalli basing on Ex.B26 (Ex.B21 in OS.No.28 of 2010) hetd that the appeilant- defendant is in possession since 1997. 34136 BRMR,J AS.No.146 2020 4L. Respondent-plaintiff admitted in his cross-exa mination in OS.No.174 of 2002 that he has alienated Ac.0-35 gts., to third parties. PlaintiFf is trying to take advantage of his own wrong that he instructed his counsel to file the suit for declaration and recovery of possession only to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts., but the suit came to be filed for Acs.06-32 gts., Plaintiff has to stand on his own pleadings and he cannot take a 'U' turn and say that the suit is for only Acs.06-00 gts., but not for Acs.06-32 gts.

42. There is no dispute that the boundaries prevail over extent. The pahanies filed by the appellant-defendant under Ex.88 goes to show that the a ppe lla nt-defendant name is recorded in the possessory column right from \997 . The cross-exa mination of PW.1 even supports his contention that the name of the def.endant is incorporated in respect of suit schedule property right from 1996.

43. The Trial Court while answering Issue No.3 has held that "plaintiff failed to establish his dispossession in the year 2009" and presumed that the dispossession must be the date of the previous suit which is 2002. When the Trial Court came to a conclusion that when the respondent- pla intiff failed to establish his dispossession in the year 2009, it ought to have answered the issue in favour of appellant- defendant but instead thereof presumed and arrived at a conclusion that the dispossession must be the date of previous suit in the year

2002. 3s136 BRMR,J AS.No.l46_202o

44. The Trial Court has not considered the admissions made the respondent-plaintiff as PW.1 with that of Exs.Bg, B2L, B3L, B32, B33 coupled with the findings of the Junior Civil Judge in OS.No.174 of 2O02 under Ex.B4 and the judgment passed by Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli in AS.No.2 of 2008 under Ex.Bs supports the case of the appellant-defendant that he is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1997. i \

45. Appella nt-defendant is in possession of suit schedule property since 1997 and the suit in OS.No.28 of 201O is presented on

13.04.2010 and numbered on 20.04.2010 which goes tp show that the suit came to be filed after 13 years which is beyond the period of I I 12 years.

46. This Court is not answering the other contentions raised by the respondent's counsel in respect of Ex.B1 in view of the fact that the suit filed by the respondent-pla intiff is barred by limitation. As stated in the preceding paragraph as the appellant-defendant restricted his arguments to the point of limitation the same is answered and I am not inclined to venture into the other points raised in the grounds of Appeal.

47. Appellant has made out a case that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is barred by limitation, Appeal deserves to be BRMR AS.No.I46 2020 allowed and is allowed, hence Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

48. In the result. Appeal is allowed, judgment and decree passed by the Principle District Judge, Khammam in OS.No.28 of 2010, dated 17.I2.2O19 is set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent- pla intiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Interirn Orders, if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s shall stands closed. SD/.M.RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR I 1 \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRt JUSTTCE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO (For His Lordships kind Perusal)

1. The Principal District Judge, Khammam, Khammam District(With records, if any)

2. 'l 1 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies ADK M HIGH COURT DATED:21l0 12025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.146 of 2020 2 DRAFTS \{E [ \ [E:1ffi 7 6)). * t ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 1 b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT O: 146 OF 2O2O c] Between: Lakkineni Ramesh, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. H.No. 5-120, Kappalabandam Road, Kalluru (V and M), Khammam District. ...AppellanUDefendant AND Lakkineni Suryanarayana, S/o. late Pullaiah, Aged 82 years, Occ. Rtd. Employee and Agriculture, Ri/o.-Krishna nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban (M), Khammam. -.-res pondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 96 Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Oaled 1711212019 made in O.S.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, Khammam District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is allowed ; 2. That the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Khammam in OS.No.28 of 2010, dated 17-12-2019 is set aside ;

3. That the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed ; 4. That the Parties to bear their own costs. SD/-M.RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Khammam, Khammam District. 2. Two CD Copies ^DK N,. HIGH COURT DATED i2110812025 DEGREE AS.No.146 of 2020 l l ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 1 1 \\