- (1.) THE respondent filed OS No.111 of 1994 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, against the appellant for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the decree obtained by the appellant in RCC No.2 of 1994, against one Sri J. Venkoba Rao is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and not binding upon the respondent. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of the respondent through a document dated 30.3.1967, under Ex.Al, from the father of the appellant, who, in turn, purchased the property on the same day, under Ex.A2. It was pleaded that the property was given on lease to Sri Venkoba Rao, and taking advantage of their absence, the appellant herein filed RCC No.2 of 1994 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni and obtained ex parte decree.
(2.) THE appellant opposed the suit by filing written-statement. It was stated that Ex.A1 is a fraudulent document, and that neither the respondent nor his father had any title over the land. Other grounds were also urged. An objection was raised, as to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the respondent is not a party to the RCC. THE trial Court decreed the suit by making an observation to the effect that the respondent is the owner of the property. THE appellant filed AS No.22 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. THE appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside, mainly on the ground that the relief of declaration of title was granted, though there was no such prayer in the plaint. THE matter was remanded to the trial Court. After remand, the respondent got amended the plaint and the relief of declaration of title was incorporated. Fresh oral evidence was adduced on the additional issues, that were framed by the trial Court. The suit was decreed, as prayed for, through judgment dated 17.4.2000. The appellant filed AS No.16 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The appeal was dismissed on 10.8.2006. Hence this Second Appeal. Sri B. Vijaya Bhasker, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent recognized the title of the father of the appellant, vis-a-vis the property, through Ex.A2, and it is just unimaginable that on the same day, on which the property was purchased by the father of the appellant, under Ex.A2, it was sold in favour of the father of the respondent, under Ex.Al. He further submits that the trial Court and lower Appellate Court have committed an error in recording the finding on the genuineness and proof of Ex.A1, by undertaking comparison of signatures, by themselves. Learned Counsel further contends that, relief of setting aside the decree in RCC No.2 of 1994 could not have been granted, since the respondent was not a party to these proceedings.
(3.) SRI K. Suresh Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the second appeal is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact He submits that Ex.A1 was proved by examining the person, who figured as a witness in the document, and hardly there was any difference in the signatures of the father of the petitioner, that were put on Exs.A1, and A2. He further submits that the document being more than 30 years old, the presumption provided for under the Indian Evidence Act gets attracted. The suit, when it was initially filed, was only for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the decree in RCC No.2 of 1994 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The trial Court framed only two issues, touching upon the controversy, viz., 1. Whether the order in R.C.C.2/94 is obtained by defendant by fraud? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for?;