THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.195 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the first defendant. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.37 of 1996 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of an extent of Ac.0.37 cents of land described therein, against the appellant and the 2nd respondent. She pleaded that the suit schedule property was owned by her husband and they were enjoying possession of the property, for a period of 30 years before his death. After the death of her husband, the 1st respondent is said to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was also stated that the pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued by the revenue authorities in the year 1995 recognising their rights. She complained that the appellant and the 1st respondent are interfering with her possession without any basis. The appellant and the 2nd respondent contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of the appellant herein in the year 1962 from the original owner and that ever since then, the property is under their possession and enjoyment. It was also alleged that the Munsif of the concerned village is a close relation of the husband of the 1st respondent and he manipulated the records. As regards the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed, the plea of the appellant was that the objections raised by him were not taken into account. Through its judgment, dated 30.12.1999, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The 1st respondent filed A.S.No.88 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal was allowed on 20.11.2003. Hence, the second appeal. Heard Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The suit filed by the 1st respondent was the one for injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, viz., “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?” On behalf of the 1st respondent, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to 10 were filed. The appellant deposed as DW.1 and on his behalf Exs.B.1 and B.2 were filed. Exs.B.6 and B.7 were filed through the 1st respondent. On dismissal of the suit, the 1st respondent filed A.S.No.88 of 2003 and the same was allowed. The suit schedule property is an agricultural land. To prove that the 1st respondent has been in possession and enjoyment thereof, she filed various documents, including pattadar pass book and title deed, marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2. She has also filed encumbrance certificate (Ex.A.5) and copies of 10(1) Accounts (Ex.A.10) and other documents. Issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of an individual has its own significance. Section 6 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’), provides for a presumption in favour of the correctness of such documents as well as the contents therein. An enquiry is conducted before issuing pattadar pass book and it is only when the Issuing Authority is satisfied that the applicant is in possession and enjoyment of the property that the records of rights and title deeds are issued. If any party is aggrieved, he can avail the remedy and revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector, respectively. The appellant did not chose to avail the remedies under the Act vis-à-vis Exs.A.1 and A.2. Further, Ex.B.1, on which he places reliance, is an unregistered document. It does not convey any title by itself. The lower Appellate Court has taken these aspects into account and decreed the suit. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. It is, however, directed that, in case the appellant files a suit for declaration of title or pursues remedies against Ex.A.1 and A.2, none of the observations made by the lower Appellate Court shall be treated as final pronouncement on the title, in relation to the suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:17.11.2011 GJ