Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 745 (TS)

Y. v. Prasanna Kumar VS S. Venkateshwar

2025-05-28

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree Dated 29-04-2010 in OS No. 67 of 2005, on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, this Appeal is preferred by the defendants-appellants. 2. For convenience sake, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. Originally, the suit was filed by respondents - plaintiffs for recovery of possession of suit schedule land admeasuring 13 square yards along with two rooms in dilapidated condition and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to block the entry for ingress and egress of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property bearing premises No. 28 and 29 situated at Picket, Secunderabad. It is stated, plaintiffs are enjoying the suit property as absolute owners and also the legal heirs of their father S.Hanumantha Rao. As they have been pre-occupied by their works and they are not in a position to look after the suit schedule property, they executed GPA in favour of one J. Ajay Babu to look after the suit schedule property and plaintiffs are paying taxes to the Cantonment Board regularly. According to plaintiffs, the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and already some of the portions collapsed and it is not fit for human dwelling. Hence, they are residing separately away from the said property. While so, defendants, who have no right, title or interest in the suit property, trespassed into the same to the extent of 32 square yards. As such plaintiffs filed a criminal case against defendants for their illegal encroachment into the suit schedule property, for which police, Marredpally registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2002 under Sections 448, 384 and 506 IPC. According to plaintiffs, the remaining property of407 square yards is in their possession and enjoyment. In the entrance, defendants are residing and not allowing plaintiff’s to enter into their portion. Plaintiffs further stated that subsequent to the purchase of house bearing Nos.28 & 29. admeasuring 439 square yards by their father, there were 5 tenants in the said premises by name 1) K.Kalavathi, 2) A Pandurangam, 3) T.Raj Kumar, 4) M Yadagiri and Y.V.Pandurangam and subsequent to the death of Y. V. Pandurangam, his legal heirs who are defendants succeeded to the tenancy rights and continued to occu?? ? portion of H.Nos. admeasuring 439 square yards by their father, there were 5 tenants in the said premises by name 1) K.Kalavathi, 2) A Pandurangam, 3) T.Raj Kumar, 4) M Yadagiri and Y.V.Pandurangam and subsequent to the death of Y. V. Pandurangam, his legal heirs who are defendants succeeded to the tenancy rights and continued to occu?? ? portion of H.Nos. 28 & 29 situated at Picket, Secunderabad consisting of two rooms on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- exclusive of electricity consumption charges It is further stated that from time to time, A. Yadagiri, A. Pandurangam, G. Raj Kumar vacated their respective portions and plaintiffs are in possession and subsequently, as there were disputes and differences between K.Kalavathi and defendants herein, K. Kalavathi committed suicide in 1990, and thereafter her daughter vacated the said portion and handed over possession to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs stated that during 2002, defendants purchased the house bearing No.30 towards northern side of the suit schedule property and let out the same and thereafter they unlawfully and illegally encroached into the portion consisting of two rooms vacated by Smt. K. Kalavathi. Subsequently, defendants have also encroached another two rooms of the said premises bearing Nos. 28 & 29, situated at Picket, Secunderabad. Since defendants have falsely set up a wrongful claim in respect of the entire suit schedule premises, plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as exclusive owners and landlords of the suit schedule property and also entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. According to plaintiffs, defendants unlawfully trespassed into the suit schedule property, as such, they are liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- pm. from the date of suit till the date of recovery of possession. 4. Before the trial Court, the case of defendants is that plaintiffs are not in possession of suit property as on the date of filing the suit, and plaintiffs have no cause of action for the suit. Defendants denied that father of plaintiffs was owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that they are not aware of the death of plaintiffs’ father on 14.12.1975 intestate as alleged. According to defendants, plaintiffs are well aware that they are not having any valid or subsisting rights over the suit property and for that reason, they set up the alleged GPA J.Ajay Babu for the purpose of the present suit. According to defendants, plaintiffs are well aware that they are not having any valid or subsisting rights over the suit property and for that reason, they set up the alleged GPA J.Ajay Babu for the purpose of the present suit. Defendants denied that the entire suit schedule property or any portion of the premises bearing Nos. 28 and 29 is in dilapidated condition and that it is unfit for human dwelling, and that they have no right title over the suit schedule property, and that the plaintiffs did not state as to when the suit schedule property was encroached by the defendants. Further, when the defendants are in occupation of the entire property, the question of plaintiffs being in possession of the same does not arise and plaintiffs have no subsisting right over the suit schedule property. It is also stated, the husband of defendant No.2 i.e. Y.V. Pandurangam was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property even before 1958 and the children were born in the schedule premises, and they are in uninterrupted and continuous possession of the suit schedule property for more than 43 years by exercising all rights of ownership over the suit schedule property and they perfected their title by way of adverse possession to the knowledge of the entire world including the plaintiffs herein to more than the statutory period. Being the owners, they carried out necessary repairs and affecting changes to the root and also letting out the portions to various tenants from time to time. Further, one of the cousins of defendant No.2 by name V.V.R.B.G.Tilak, son of Sri Y. Rama Rao was also living in the suit property and the alleged GPA of the plaintiffs approached defendants taking advantage of his closeness to the deceased son of defendant No 2 informing that he had good contacts with the officials of Cantonment Board and he would get the necessary permission for making pucca constructions over the suit schedule property. Trusting the said GPA Holder of plaintiffs, defendants handed over the tax receipts and bills in respect of the suit schedule property to him in good faith and the said GPA Holder by colluding with the plaintiffs created the documents and GPA. On 28.4.2002 the plaintiffs attempted to dispossess defendants from the suit schedule property, as such the cause of action arose for counter-claim to the defendants. On 28.4.2002 the plaintiffs attempted to dispossess defendants from the suit schedule property, as such the cause of action arose for counter-claim to the defendants. Therefore, defendants prayed this Court to grant permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 5. Plaintiffs filed rejoinder stating that defendants have no right or title, originally their father was the owner of suit schedule property having purchased under a registered document and after his death they succeeded to the property. According to them, the husband of defendant No. 2 was a tenant and he created the documents by mentioning the address of premises No. 28 and 29, Picket, Secunderabad. Plaintiffs stated that normally, where the tenants reside in the houses of owners show the address where they reside at the time of school admission, letter correspondence, electricity bills, telephone bills, tax receipts and also obtaining ration card, voter list, even in death certificates, and in the same manner, defendants mentioned premises bearing No. 28 and 29 and made correspondence with the authorities which will not give any title to defendants over the suit schedule property against the real owners. Plaintiffs denied that defendants perfected their title by way of adverse possession and also denied that they are in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 43 years. Plaintiffs also denied the allegation that they created the documents with the help of their GPA Holder, J.Ajay Babu and filed the false suit. 6. Initially, the Trial Court framed the following issuers for consideration: 1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of recovery of possession of land admeasuring 13 sq. yards? 2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 3) Whether the defendants are entitled fori the relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the defendants peaceful possession and enjoyment of the counter-claim schedule property? 7. During the pendency of suit, plaintiffs got amended the plaint and also sought for relief of declaration and for recovery of possession to an extent of 439 sq. Yards and they also claimed damages @ Rs.2,000/- from the defendants for unlawful occupation of the suit premises. After amendment, defendants have not filed their additional written statement though this Court has granted sufficient time. 8. Yards and they also claimed damages @ Rs.2,000/- from the defendants for unlawful occupation of the suit premises. After amendment, defendants have not filed their additional written statement though this Court has granted sufficient time. 8. Therefore, the trial Court framed the following additional issues: 1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the exclusive owners and landlords of the suit schedule property bearing house No. 28 and29, admeasuring 439 sq. yards situated at Picket, Secunderabad? 2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of damages / mesne profits @ Rs.2,000/- p.m. from the defendants for unlawful use and occupation of the suit schedule premises from the date of suit till the date delivery of possession to the plaintiffs? 9. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A41 on behalf of plaintiffs and D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B.13 on behalf of defendants and Exs.X1 to X5 marked through P.W.3, observed as under: “28. After amendment was carried out, the value of the reliefs sought in the suit crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of XVII Junior Civil Judge and the said Court returned the suit on 11.7.2005 for presenting before proper Court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs tiled the present suit before this Court by paying the additional court tee as required. After receiving the case tile in OS No 164/2002 from the XVIII Junior Civil Judge, this Court numbered the suit as OS No. 67/2005. 29. In the original written statement the defendants have taken the plea of adverse possession but claimed the relief of injunction. Further after the amendment was carried out and the plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of the entire property admeasuring 439 sq yards the defendants had not tiled any additional written statement denying the pleadings of the amended plaint. When the original written statement was filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs tiled rejoinder denying the allegations made in the written statement filed by the defendants regarding adverse possession Admittedly, the defendants in the written statement though pleaded about adverse possession, they have not paid the court tee and paid the court tee only for the relief of injunction. When the original written statement was filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs tiled rejoinder denying the allegations made in the written statement filed by the defendants regarding adverse possession Admittedly, the defendants in the written statement though pleaded about adverse possession, they have not paid the court tee and paid the court tee only for the relief of injunction. As the matter stood thus, the defendants have not challenged the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs for declaration that they are the exclusive owners of the suit schedule property admeasuring 439 sq. yards and for recovery of possession of the same, and also def grant of mesne profits 30. As on today, the case of the plaintiffs is that their lather S. Hanumantha Rao was the original owner of the entire suit schedule property bearing No. 28 & 29, admeasuring 439 sq.yds. Having purchased under a registered Sale Deed under Ex A-1 in the year 1940 and he let out some of the rooms to the tenants including the father of the defendants Y.V. Pandurangam. As per the documentary evidence, he made an application for mutation to the Cantonment authorities under Ex A-23 in the year 1944 and a fresh assessment was issued by the Cantonment Board under Ex A-24 in the year 1957. As per Ex.A-2, Ex A-3, Ex A-4, Ex.A-5, Ex A-7, Ex A-8, Ex.A-12 10 Ex. A-17, the father of plaintiffs paid the property tax. It is the evidence of plaintiffs that in the year 1959 when their father made unauthorized constructions, the Cantonment Board issues demolition notice and their father issued an objection and reply on 13.9 1959 It is an admitted fact that PW 3 is the son of one A.Pandurangam who was one of the tenants in the suit schedule property along with Smt. K. Kalavathi and others. It is also an admitted fact that Smt. K. Kalavathi committed suicide in the year 1990 due to the harassment of the defendants and thereafter her daughter vacated the schedule premises According to the plaintiffs, after vacating the two rooms held by Smt. K.Kalavathi, the defendants illegally occupied the same In the evidence of PW 3 it was not suggested that his father was not the tenant in the suit schedule property and also not suggested that they were tenants of the defendants. Since there is no denial about the ownership of the plaintiffs for the m property of 439 sq.yds in the house No.28 & 29, Picket, Secunderabad, plaintiffs, no doubt, are entitled for declaration and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. 31. Defendants also filed Exs. B-12 and Ex B-13 which are receipts issued by the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board and as per the said documents it is evident that they received the amounts from the father of plaintiffs. These documents are pertaining to the year 1995 and 2002. If the defendants perfected their title by way of adverse possession, the same is also not established with respect to adverse possession by them There is no other document filed by the defendants to show that they perfected their title by way of adverse possession over the suit schedule property. It really the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property, it is not explained as to how they allowed to issue property tax receipts in the name of plaintiffs father and why they have not objected while issuing Exs. B-12 and Ex.B-13 in the name of plaintiffs’ father. This shows that the defendants are aware that plaintiffs’ father was the original owner of the entire suit schedule property. 32. The other contention of the defendants that they got repaired the suit schedule property and let out the property IO tenants, is without any evidence. Further, the burden is on the defendants to prove that they perfected their title by way of adverse possession, but the said burden was not dispatched by proving from which year, on what date, in which month they perfected their title by way of adverse possession and the original Written statement tiled by the defendants is also silent on these aspects. 33. Now it has to be seen whether how far the defendants proved their case regarding their title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Their claim is for the last 58 years they are in possession of the suit schedule property admeasuring 439 sq.yds and they are exercising all the ownership rights in respect of the suit schedule property. Their claim is for the last 58 years they are in possession of the suit schedule property admeasuring 439 sq.yds and they are exercising all the ownership rights in respect of the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination defendant No. 1 admitted that they have not filed any documents such as electoral roll, voter identity card or 1.D. issued by employer of his uncle YVRGB Tilak who was also in possession of the suit schedule property along with the defendants DW 1 further admits that he has not tiled any document prior to 1946 such as bills issued by Electricity Board Tax Assessment Card or Property Tax bills to show that their lather was in possession of the property for more than 75 years According to DW 1, they let out some portions to the tenants but the same could not established because he has not tiled any documentary evidence regarding the particulars of the tenants and also the quantum of rent paid by them DW I also admits that he has not tiled any bills or receipts issued by the Cantonment Board for payment of property tax in respect of the suit schedule property subsequent to independence, and admits that Ex B- 12 and Ex B-13 tax receipts shows the name of the father of the plaintiffs by name Hanumantha Rao admits that though the name of S. Hanumantha Rao was shown in Ex.B-12 and Ex.B-13, they have not made any objection in issuing the receipts in his name. DW.1 does not know that in the year 1940 plaintiffs’ father S. Hanumantha Rao purchased the suit schedule property under a registered Sale Deed and the suit schedule property is having door No.3-1-14. DW. 1 also does not know whether the plaintiffs’ father applied TO Cantonment Board for carrying out repairs to the suit schedule property and also DW.1 does not know the name of the father of the plaintiffs S.Hanumantha Rao was mutated in the municipal records DW I also cannot say the date and month on which his father occupied the suit schedule property. Likewise, DW.1 has no documentary evidence to show that his grand parents were in occupation of the suit schedule property, and further stated that he has not tiled any rent receipts to show that they have collected the rents from the tenants in occupation of the suit schedule property, and admits that one Kalavathi was in occupation of another portion of suit schedule property as tenant of plaintiffs and she committed suicide due to disputes with them. 34. From the evidence of DW 1 it is clear that they have no documentary evidence to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property since 58 years and they perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Further, the documents Ex B-12 and Rx.B-13 themselves show that they were issued in For this name of the plaintiffs father S Hanumantha Rao discrepancy also the defendants are unable to explain and further they have not made any objections to the concerned authority ie.. Cantonment Board. Apart from the evidence of DW 1 there is no other evidence to prove that they perfected their title to the suit schedule by way of adverse possession the other hand, PW 3 is the independent witness categorically stated that his father and father of the defendants were tenants in the suit schedule property and in the year 1998 he vacate the said premises. From the evidence of PW 3 nothing has been elicited to disprove the plaintiffs’ contention by the defendants. 35. The oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence clinchingly proves that the plaintiffs father purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1940 under Ex A-1 and the said property is bearing No. 28 & A situated at Picket. Secunderabad and the defendants tailed prove their title by way of adverse possession. Therefore, plaintiffs proved that they are the exclusive owners of the s schedule property and hence they are entitled for declare that they are the exclusive owners of the suit schedule proper and also they are entitled for recovery of possession of the s schedule property from the defendants. 36. Plaintiffs also claimed damages @ Rs.2,000/- pm for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule property by the defendants. 36. Plaintiffs also claimed damages @ Rs.2,000/- pm for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule property by the defendants. As the plaintiffs proved their title to the suit schedule property and they are entitled for recovery of possession, the defendants have to pay the damages/mesne profits for their unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule property. So far as deciding the quantum of damages/mesne profits is concerned, it has to be decided in a separate application tiled by the plaintiffs U/O 20, Rule 12 CPC Hence these issues are answered accordingly, in favour of the plantains and against the defendants.” 10. In view of framing of additional issues, the Trial Court observed that there is no need to discuss about Issues 1 to 3. 11. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for appellants submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the relief of declaration and possession by the plaintiffs could not have been granted in view of their pleadings that defendants are tenants in the portion of suit property consisting of 2 rooms, on a monthly rent of Rs 50/-, and if the said allegation of plaintiffs is true, that possession cannot be granted in view of the tenancy being covered under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (LR&E) Act, and civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession. It is submitted that the Court below ought to have seen that either in the original plaint or in the amended plaint, there is no mention of the alleged trespass by the defendants, hence, the suit ought to have been dismissed for want of cause of action, in terms of Order 7 rule 11 CPC. Learned Senior Counsel submits that plaintiffs must file suit for possession within 12 years from the date of their dispossession and in this suit, when plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit property was not known. According to learned Senior Counsel, defendants are in possession of the suit property for more than 60 years. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 categorically states that tenants in the suit property were the tenants of Defendants and they were paying rents to defendants and plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove contra. According to learned Senior Counsel, defendants are in possession of the suit property for more than 60 years. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 categorically states that tenants in the suit property were the tenants of Defendants and they were paying rents to defendants and plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove contra. The Court below ought to have seen that after amendment of the suit, the relief of defendants for perpetual injunction was not considered, even though defendants have prayed for such relief, by paying the court fee, as could be seen from the original issues framed by the trial court, before its transfer, laments learned Senior Counsel. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devasahayam v. P. Savithramma , (2005) 7 SCC 653 and contends that if the defendants are tenants, as stated by plaintiffs, suit for eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 would lie before a Rent Controller and not before a civil Court. In terms of the proviso appended to Section 10(1) of the said Act before the parties can pursue their remedies in a civil Court, a Rent Controller is required to arrive at a finding as regards the bona fides or otherwise of the claim of the tenant. He also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tharayil Sarada v. Govindan, (1983) 2 SCC 276 and submits that since plaintiffs were allowed to amend the plaint, defendants ought to have been given opportunity to file an additional written statement before passing a decree or order. In this case, the Court below has not given such an opportunity to his clients, contends learned Senior Counsel. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents – plaintiffs Sri K.K. Waghray, submits that the judgment under Appeal was passed by the learned Judge after full-fledged trial, hence, no interference is warranted. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa , (2006) 7 SCC 570 and submits that since possessor was not sure, claim of adverse possession is not maintainable. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram , AIR 2020 SC 461 . To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram , AIR 2020 SC 461 . Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation , 1993 Supp (2) SCC 146 to contend that where two connected suits tried together and finding recorded in one suit became final in absence of appeal, appeal preferred against the finding recorded in the other suit would be barred by res judicata. 13. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, including evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it is clear that Appellants are Defendants in the suit bearing O.S. No 67 of 2005 filed by Respondents – Plaintiffs. Originally, the suit was filed for recovery of possession of an extent of 13 Square yards from outof total extent of the property bearing H. Nos. 28 and 29 situated at Picket, Secunderabad admeasuring 439 Square Yards and that suit bears O.S. No 164 of 2002 on the file of Learned XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. Since Defendants encroached and took illegal possession of the entire extent of suit property admeasuring 439 Sq. Yds., I.A. No. 113 of 2004 was taken out for amending the plaint and also the prayer portion in the plaint seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said Application was dismissed on 28.04.2004, as against which, Plaintiffs filed Civil Revision Petition No. 4888 of 2004 and it was allowed on 23.03.2005. Thereafter, in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was renumbered as O.S. No.67 of 2005 and allotted to learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Secunderabad. 14. The case of Plaintiffs is that their father, S.Hanumanth Rao purchased the suit property ie., H.No.28 & 29, situated at Picket, Secunderabad admeasuring 439 Sq Yds., under registered sale deed bearing document No.901 of 1940, dated 13.12.1940 from its vendor L. Satyanarayana, and ever since the Plaintiff’s father was in possession and enjoyment of the property. He died intestate on 14 02.1975, as such Plaintiffs succeeded to the property. The property was let out to 5 tenants and they were staying in difference portions namely 1. Kalavathi, 2. A.Pandu Rangam, 3. T.Rajkumar, 4. M.yadagiri and 5. Y.V.Pandu Rangam. He died intestate on 14 02.1975, as such Plaintiffs succeeded to the property. The property was let out to 5 tenants and they were staying in difference portions namely 1. Kalavathi, 2. A.Pandu Rangam, 3. T.Rajkumar, 4. M.yadagiri and 5. Y.V.Pandu Rangam. Subsequently the tenants vacated the premises. Defendants were L.Rs of the deceased tenant Y.V.Pandu Rangam and they acquired the adjacent property bearing House No.30. Since they illegally and unauthorizedly took possession of the entire suit property on 16.01.2002, an F.I.R No.7 of 2002 was registered against them by Marredpally Police. Whereas, Defendants denied title of father of Plaintiffs and also alleged that Plaintiffs are not having any valid or subsisting rights over the suit property. They claimed possession even before 1958 and set up a case of perfecting their title by adverse possession and thus in the counter claim they sought the relief of injunction for protecting their possession. 15. During the pendency of Appeal, Appellant No. 2 died and Appellant No. 1 is the son of Appellant No 2, who is the sole Appellant now in the appeal. Further, Respondents 1, 2 and 4 also died. Respondents 5 to 7 are L.Rs. of Respondent No.1. Respondents 8 to 10 are L.Rs of Respondent No.2. Since Respondent No 4 died issueless and was a Bachelor, hence no steps are taken against him. 16. Here, it is to be noted that title of Plaintiffs traces back to 1940 under Ex. A-1 - registered sale deed; thereafter, mutation proceedings were issued in favour of Plaintiff’s father on 28.07.1944 under Ex. A-23. The property tax being paid from 1975 till 2006 exhibited as A-2 to A-17. Exs. A-24 to A-41 are assessment order, notices issued by the authorities, tax receipts issued by the MCH all covering period from 30.08.1959 to 05.05.2008. Thus, Exs. A-1 to A-41 establish title of Plaintiffs from 1940 onwards and the same is substantiated by evidence of PWs.1 to 3. 17. On the other hand, Exs. B-1 to B-12 filed by Defendants are all electoral card, birth certificate, death certificate, telephone booth, etcetera. Thus, defendants have set up a plea of adverse possession in their written statement without admitting the title of the owner, as such the plea of adverse possession is not sustainable. 17. On the other hand, Exs. B-1 to B-12 filed by Defendants are all electoral card, birth certificate, death certificate, telephone booth, etcetera. Thus, defendants have set up a plea of adverse possession in their written statement without admitting the title of the owner, as such the plea of adverse possession is not sustainable. None of the documents filed by defendants establishes their alleged claim apart from that they failed to specify as to how they establish the alleged claim of adverse possession, more particularly when there is a documentary and oral evidence produced by Plaintiffs. Further, the evidence of DW-1 is contradictory on the count that in the written statement they alleged possession from 1958 wherein in the evidence they claim possession from 1947. The trial Court gave specific finding in favour of Plaintiffs and against Defendants. It noted that as on today, the case of plaintiffs is that their father S. Hanumantha Rao was the original owner of the entire suit schedule property bearing No. 28 & 29, admeasuring 439 sq.yds. having purchased under a registered Sale Deed under Ex A-1 in the year 1940 and he let out some of the rooms to the tenants including the father of the defendants Y.V. Pandurangam. As per the documentary evidence, he made an application for mutation to the Cantonment authorities under Ex A-23 in 1944 and a fresh assessment was issued by the Cantonment Board under Ex A-24 in 1957. As per Ex.A-2 to A5, A-7, A-8, A-12 to A-17, the father of plaintiffs paid the property tax. It is the evidence of plaintiffs that in 1959 when their father made unauthorized constructions, the Cantonment Board issued demolition notice and their father issued an objection and reply on 13.09.1959. It is an admitted fact that PW 3 is the son of one A.Pandurangam who was one of the tenants in the suit schedule property along with Smt. K. Kalavathi and others. It is also an admitted fact that Smt. K. Kalavathi committed suicide in 1990 due to the harassment of defendants and thereafter her daughter vacated the schedule premises. According to plaintiffs, after vacating two rooms held by Smt K.Kalavathi, defendants illegally occupied the same. In the evidence of P.W.3, it was not suggested that his father was not the tenant in the suit schedule property and also not suggested that they were tenants of the defendants. According to plaintiffs, after vacating two rooms held by Smt K.Kalavathi, defendants illegally occupied the same. In the evidence of P.W.3, it was not suggested that his father was not the tenant in the suit schedule property and also not suggested that they were tenants of the defendants. Since there is no denial about the ownership of plaintiffs for the property of 439 sq.yds bearing House Nos. 28 and 29, Picket Secunderabad, plaintiffs, no doubt, are entitled for declaration and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. 18. In the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the respondents in Premier Tyres Limited’s case (supra) it has been held that effect of non-filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it becomes final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follow when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from. Thus the finality of finding recorded in the connected suit, due to non-filing of appeal, precluded the court from proceeding with appeal in the other suit. In this case, defendants though taken a counter-claim to grant permanent injunction restraining plaintiffs from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the trial Court did not answer the same in view of the findings given in additional issues, the defendants have not chosen to challenge the same by filing a separate Appeal against rejection of counter claim, as such, the present Appeal is also barred by the principle of res judicata. 19. Further, in Nirmala Devi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘No specific issue of counterclaim was framed by trial Court though onus was fastened upon defendants and no findings were given by trial Court independently on issue of counter-claim, High Court in Second Appeal regarding claim of ownership remitted matter to trial Court on ground that counterclaim not decided. However, issue in counter-claim pertained to denial of ownership of plaintiff and assertion of same by defendants, therefore, plaintiff was well aware that there was refutation of his claim. Counterclaim held was not in that way an indecent claim. In view of the aforesaid, High Court should have been well advised to dwell upon merits of the case and should not have remanded matter to trial Court. Counterclaim held was not in that way an indecent claim. In view of the aforesaid, High Court should have been well advised to dwell upon merits of the case and should not have remanded matter to trial Court. Order of High Court set aside and High Court directed to adjudicate Second Appeal in accordance with law’. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The Appeal therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 21. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 22. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.