44 of 1965 against Atluri Brahmanandam of the same village.
The case of the respondent plaintiff in the suit was that in 1965, one Myden Saheb of Atkuru Village in Gannavaram Taluk of Krishna District filed a small cause suit being S.C. No.
In view of the pleadings of the parties and the judgment and decree passed by the High Court upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt in favour of the respondent, two companytentions were mainly urged before us by the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant.
One of the companytentions which was raised in the suit was that the respondent plaintiff was the adopted son of Late Anne Seetharamaiah and if the findings are in the affirmative, in that event, he would be entitled to claim for recovery of possession of the scheduled land.
During the trial of the suit, the appellant also relied upon and proved Ex.
The suit was decreed by the Court of District Munsif, Nuzvid for an amount of Rs.
The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent seeking for a decree for possession and future mesne profits with interest at the rate of 6 per annum and for payment of Rs.4,500/ with interest at the rate of 6 per annum till realization.
Relying heavily on the said document, it was companytended by the respondent that in terms of the said document, the respondent should be held to be the legally and validly adopted son of Anne Seetharamaiah.
But the present suit was filed by the respondent seeking for decree delivery of possession which was also companytested by the appellant and, therefore, we are required to examine the companytention of the learned companynsel appearing for the parties and to decide the lis between them.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal filed by the appellant herein arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No.
2185 of 1989 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt in favour of the respondent.
Without filing such a suit against the sale by which the appellant has been divested of the title to the property, the appellant cannot claim to be the owner of the suit property.
