P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel on record. ( 2 ) THE Second Appeal No. 261 of 1997 is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in o. S. No. 51 of 1984 on the file of Principal district Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A. S. No. 59 of 1993 on file of Principal subordinate Judge, Kakmada. As against respondent No. 1 the Second Appeal was dismissed for default. ( 3 ) THE Second Appeal No. 214 of 1998 is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in o. S. No. 54 of 1984 on the file of the Principal district Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A. S. No. 36 of 1992 on the file of Principal subordinate Judge, Kakinada. ( 4 ) THOUGH, the appellants, in these two appeals are different, the respondent-plaintiff being common and inasmuch as these matters had been disposed of by the Court below by a common Judgment, both these second Appeals are being disposed of by the common Judgment. ( 5 ) SRI T. M. K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the second Appeals had pointed out that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in these Second appeals is as hereunder: whether Ex. A-1 is admissible in evidence and be treated as substantive evidence? ( 6 ) THE learned counsel in all fairness submitted that in the light of the fact that the concurrent findings had been recorded by the Courts below, except this question no other question needs be considered, since all other aspects relate to the factual details. ( 7 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the respective original suits. The plaintiff is Boggavarapu Subba rao Choultry, in short, hereinafter referred to as "choultry". ( 8 ) THE plaintiff-Choultry filed O. S. No. 51 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif, kakinada praying for declaration of title in relation to the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same and the same was decreed in part with proportionate costs against the defendant by giving one month time for eviction. It was pleaded in the said plaint as hereunder:"the plaintiff Choultry owns extensive house-sites in Sarpavaram adjoining the main road. The said site was purchased on 25-/-1934 as per the registered Sale Deed. It was pleaded in the said plaint as hereunder:"the plaintiff Choultry owns extensive house-sites in Sarpavaram adjoining the main road. The said site was purchased on 25-/-1934 as per the registered Sale Deed. The said house- site being in "grama Khantham" was not assessed to any tax. The plan showing the entire house-site is filed and the house-site is marked as ABCD efghij in the plaint plan. There is a tiled room wherein one Pulla Sesharao was residing with the permission of the plaintiff as the said Sesharao is helping in the management of the Choultry properties. Except the said titled room the rest of the schedule site is a vacant site. Sri Kammarthi Tammarao is a tenant of the said property for raising vegetables on a yearly rent of Rs. 60/- payable on 15th January of every year. The defendant occupied an extent of 72 Sq. yards (60. 20 Sq. metres) on the northern side of the plaintiff house-site about 8 years ago and constructed a thatched house originally which was again converted into a tiled house in 1982. The occupation was without the consent of the plaintiff and therefore the defendant is atrespasser. The site under the occupation of the defendant is marked as VUYE in the plaint plan. It is now worth Rs. 5,400/- at Rs. 75/- pr sq. yard, which is the present market value. It fetches a rent of Rs. 1 00/- per month, if it is leased out. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 1-3-1982 to the defendant to which, the defendant got issued a reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit for declaration of title, for possession and for past and future profits. " ( 9 ) THE defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations and further pleaded as hereunder: the defendant does not admit that boggavarapu Subba Rao is the hereditary trustee. To the knowledge of the defendant the said Boggavarapu subba Rao was never recognized by the Endowments Department as hereditary Trustee. So the plaintiff has to establish that it was properly represented in filing this suit. It is true that the plaintiff-Choultry is owning some land adjoining the public road, but it is not in main road and it is also not the owner of the entire land abutting the said road. So the plaintiff has to establish that it was properly represented in filing this suit. It is true that the plaintiff-Choultry is owning some land adjoining the public road, but it is not in main road and it is also not the owner of the entire land abutting the said road. The land is not a site but it is only an agricultural land and in major portion of it there are agricultural operations even now. The defendant is not aware as to when the plaintiff purchased the land covered by sale deed dated 25-7-1934. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the land covered by the sale deed dated 25-/-1934. The defendant is not aware as to whether the said alleged house-site is assigned as Gramkantam. The plaint plan is not correct. The entire site covered by the plaint plan does not belong to the plaintiff. The defendant does not admit the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint. The defendant also does not admit that Pulla Sesharao is living in the tiled roof with the permission of the plaintiff. It is true that Kommarthi Tatarao is a tenant but the defendant does not know the rent that is being paid by him. The defendant is not in occupation of fixed site, which is on elevated portion separated from the rest of the surrounding land. The site is surrounded by Koradi. The measurements are not correctly given. The said house-site is situated on the Northern side of the plaintiff s land. But it is absolutely false to state that the defendant occupied the plaint schedule site 8 years back. He converted it into a tiled house in 1982. As the plaintiff is not the owner of the property covered by the said tiled house, there is no question of taking any consent from the plaintiff. The value given in the plaint with regard to the disputed site is not correct. The value is not more than Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. It is absolutely false to state that it fetches rent of Rs. 100/- per month. The site does not fetch more than Rs. 10/- per month if it is leased out. It is true that the defendant got issued a reply when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice. The contents of the reply notice are correct and they represent true state of affairs. 100/- per month. The site does not fetch more than Rs. 10/- per month if it is leased out. It is true that the defendant got issued a reply when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice. The contents of the reply notice are correct and they represent true state of affairs. The suit for declaration of title, possession and past and future profits is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the suit. The mother of the defendant T. Narasamma, w/o Subba rao is the owner of the property having come in to possession of the said site on the road margin nearly 25 years back. She raised a thatched shed there and was running a tea stall and she was also living there. She always treated the said property as her own. It was in her exclusive possession and enjoyment. Later on the defendant who is the daughter of Narasamma was married and the defendant and her husband took over the tea stall business. They are also living there with the defendant s mother. Since they are enjoying the property in their own right beyond statutory period of limitation without any interruption, continuously they have perfected their title by adverse possession. As an ownerthe defendant and her husband converted the said thatched house into two rooms tenements by converting tiled house about more than 3 years back. If really the plaintiff is the owner of the property the alleged hereditary trustee would not have kept quite without objection, when the thatched house is converted into tiled house. So the conduct on the part of the plaintiff shows that it has no right whatsoever, over the plaint schedule site. The suit is engineered by the plaintiff to get wrongful gain at the expense of the defendant. ( 10 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled before the Court of first instance: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession after ejecting the defendant from the schedule property? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past profits claimed? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future profits? (5) To what relief? ( 11 ) LIKEWISE, the plaintiff-Choultry filed o. S. No. 54 of 1984 as against the other defendant, the appellant in Second Appeal no. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past profits claimed? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future profits? (5) To what relief? ( 11 ) LIKEWISE, the plaintiff-Choultry filed o. S. No. 54 of 1984 as against the other defendant, the appellant in Second Appeal no. 214 of 1998 forthe self same relief, which had been referred to supra. ( 12 ) THE plaintiff-Choultry pleaded in the plaint as hereunder: the defendant occupied an extent of 72 sq. yards (6020 Sq. metres) on the North-West corner of the plaintiff house-site about 5 years are claiming to have purchased from p. Sesharao and converted the same into a tiled house in 1982. The said occupation is unauthorized and the defendant is a trespasser. The site under the occupation of the defendant is shown as ANOP. Its worth rs. 5,400/- at 75 per sq. yard, it fetches a rent of Rs. 125/- per month , if it is leased out. ( 13 ) IN the Written Statement, it was pleaded by the defendant that the disputed site is not a house-site. The plaintiff had no house-site in Sarpavarm village. The plaintiff owns a cultivable land. No plan is filed with the plaint and the plan referred to in the plaint is not correct. The defendant has not occupied an extent of 72 sq. yards of house-site as alleged in the plaint. The defendant did not occupy the property of the plaintiff. P. Sesharao never lived in the plaintiff s land and he never looked after the plaintiff s property. He was living in the house as of right and the same was his absolute property. P. Sesharao was in absolute possession and enjoyment of 98 sq. yards of site for the last 30 years and prior to that his predecessors were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 30 years, that they raised a thatched house. They were in possession and enjoyment of the same openly uninterruptedly as of right. The said p. Sesharao who was absolute owner of the suite 98 sq. yards of site and the thatched house sold away the same to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 7-1-1977 for Rs. 1,000/ -. They were in possession and enjoyment of the same openly uninterruptedly as of right. The said p. Sesharao who was absolute owner of the suite 98 sq. yards of site and the thatched house sold away the same to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 7-1-1977 for Rs. 1,000/ -. Since then, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the said house and site, in the month of February, 1982 the defendant converted the thatched house in to a tiled house. It is false to allege that the occupation of the scheduled property by the defendant is without the consent and that the defendant is a trespasser. The plaintiff s land is situated on the northern side and the western side and the same is separated by Kattava. The Kattava is with shrubs and trees, which are there from many decades. The kattav separated the plaintiff s and the defendant s sites. The said kattava is the boundry in between the plaintiff and the defendant s properties. The defendant s house and site are adjoining the road margin on the north. It is abutting the road and the other side of the kattava. The defendant is not liable to pay any rent of profits at rs. 125/- per month. The suit is filed with ulterior motives as the defendant s site is causing obstruction to the plaintiff s and the plaintiff wanted to get the same on some protest or the other. The plaint schedule is not correct. The boundaries and the extents mentioned in the plaint are incorrect. The defendant got issued a reply to the notice got issued by the plaintiff with true and correct facts. The suit is not maintainable in this forum. The defendant perfected her title by adverse possession. The suit is barred by limitation. The defendant does not admit that boggavarapu Subba Rao is the hereditary trustee of plaintiff Choultry. The defendant also does not admit that the said Subba Rao has got the right to file the suit on behalf of the choultry. The cause of action is false. The value of the suit and the court fee paid are not correct. The value is highly exaggerated and therefore, the value of the site mentioned in the plaint is not correct. The cause of action is false. The value of the suit and the court fee paid are not correct. The value is highly exaggerated and therefore, the value of the site mentioned in the plaint is not correct. The plaintiff is estopped from questioning the defendant s possession and enjoyment of the property, as it never questioned the same for all these decades. ( 14 ) ON the strength of these pleadings before the Court of first instance, the following issues have been settled: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendant therefrom? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits if so, at what rate? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future profits? (5) To what relief? ( 15 ) BEFORE the Court of first instance, these issues were tried along with O. S. Nos. 51 of 1984 to 54 of 1984 and the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 and D. Ws. 1 to 11 was recorded and Exs. A-1 to A-22 and B-1 to B-12, and exs. X-1 to X-6 were marked. ( 16 ) AFTER recording the findings, the Court of first instance decreed the suits in part with proportionate costs. No doubt that the suit was decreed in part declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the sites shown in Ex. C-2 plan and the rest of the suit claim is dismissed without costs and Ex. C-2 plan to be attached to the decree, a month s time had been granted for eviction. ( 17 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the matters were carried by wayof appeals i. e. A. S. No. 59 of 1993, A. S. No. 29 of 1992 and A. S. No. 36 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate judge, Kakinada and the learned Principal subordinate Judge, Kakinada passed a common Judgment dated 29th October, 1996. While disposing of three appeals and the cross appeals i. e. , A. S. No. 29 of 1992, 36 of 1992 and 59 of 1993 the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that both the appeals and cross-appeals are devoid of merits and dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals and directed the parties to bear their own costs. While disposing of three appeals and the cross appeals i. e. , A. S. No. 29 of 1992, 36 of 1992 and 59 of 1993 the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that both the appeals and cross-appeals are devoid of merits and dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals and directed the parties to bear their own costs. In fact, at Paragraph 8 of the appellate court Judgment, the first appellate Court framed the following points forconsideration: (1) Whether the common judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside, if so, on what grounds? (2) Whetherthe decrees passed in either of the suits in O. S. No. 51 of 1984, or 52 of 1984 or 53 of 1984 is liable to be set aside, if so on what grounds? (3) To what relief? ( 18 ) COMMENCING from Paragraphs 9 to 30 of the appellate Court Judgment, the findings in detail had been recorded and on perusal of the said findings recorded by both the Courts below which are concurrent findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that all these findings are relating to the facts. ( 19 ) THE only question which had been canvassed before this Court is that Ex. A-1 dated 25-7-1934-title deed in favour of the plaintiff is only a registration extract of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and the original of the same had not been produced and therefore it would not constitute substantive evidence. On the material available on record this objection had not been taken at the earliest point of time and inasmuch as the appellants in the respective appeals have no other say relating to the concurrent factual findings, this objection is being raised for the first time before the second Appellate Court. ( 20 ) IN view of peculiar facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said question cannot be said to be a substantial question of law and in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings as Second Appellate court and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 21 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Second Appeals are hereby dismissed, in the circumstances without costs. ( 22 ) AS can be seen from the nature of litigation this is a long drawn litigation. ( 21 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Second Appeals are hereby dismissed, in the circumstances without costs. ( 22 ) AS can be seen from the nature of litigation this is a long drawn litigation. However, the appellants are granted a month s time to vacate the respective properties.