THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.404 of 2007 AND S.A.No.418 of 2007 DATE: 30.03.2011 S.A.No.404 of 2007 BETWEEN: Jonnalagadda Venkatappaiah .. Appellant/Defendant And Jonnalagadda Veeraiah .. Respondent/Plaintiff S.A.No.418 of 2007 BETWEEN: Jonnalagadda Venkatappaiah .. Appellant/Defendant And Jonnalagadda Veeraiah and others .. Respondents/Plaintiffs THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.404 of 2007 AND S.A.No.418 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: S.A.No.404 of 2007 is filed against the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District in A.S.No.9 of 2006 reversing the decree and judgment dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally in O.S.No.92 of 1996. Whereas, S.A.No.418 of 2007 is filed against the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District in A.S.No.10 of 2006 reversing the decree and judgment dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally in O.S.No.78 of 1996. I have heard Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both appeals and Sri Kouturi Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the appeals. The appellant filed O.S.No.78 of 1996 seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the land of an extent of 20 guntas in Survey No.62 of Ayyagaripeta of Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. He claims to have purchased the land from the first respondent under an agreement to sell in the year 1982. The respondents also filed O.S.No.92 of 1996 seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of 13 guntas of land in Survey No.62/Lu/A of Ayyagaripeta of Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. The boundaries mentioned by both the parties for the lands in their suits are different. It also appears that the lands claimed by each party are different, though the respondents contend that the appellant has been trying to encroach upon their land. The learned trial Court clubbed both suits and held joint trial in O.S.No.92 of 1996. On behalf of the respondents herein PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the appellant herein DWs.1 to DW3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B.6 were marked. The commissioner’s report was marked as Ex.C.1 and surveyor’s report was marked as Ex.C.2. The learned trial court decreed O.S.No.78 of 1996 and dismissed O.S.No.92 of 1996. On the appeals filed by the respondents therefrom, the appellate Court reversed the judgments passed by the trial Court, and aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present second appeals. Since the issues to be decided between the parties are same and the common questions of facts and law would arise for consideration, both the second appeals are disposed of by the common judgment. It would appear from the evidence forthcoming on either side, and also the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the lands claimed by each party are different and in proof of title and possession, both parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted at the hearing of the second appeals that they are in possession of certain guntas of land which belong to them and they are in no way concerned with the land of the appellant. The reports of the commissioner which are marked as Exs.C.1 and C2 and the evidence of the witnesses revealed that when measured it was found that the respondents are in possession of 15 guntas of land in Survey No.15/Lu/A i.e. .2 guntas more than the extent claimed by them. The evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer revealed that survey was conducted without availability of any records relating to sub-division. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the crucial issue which has to be decided in these two appeals is the exact extent of land possessed by each party. Both the Courts below have not recorded any specific finding regarding the actual extent of land possessed by each party and thereby left the crucial point undetermined. Unless the respective lands are demarcated, the purpose of parties approaching the Court will not be achieved and the point of controversy will not be resolved. Therefore, these two appeals are disposed of setting aside the decrees and judgments passed by the first appellate Court and the matter is remitted to the first appellate Court with a direction to appoint an advocate commissioner to conduct survey with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor with reference to all the concerned revenue records to demarcate and localize the schedule mentioned lands in each suit and to submit report with sketch plan. The first appellate Court, however, may also permit the parties to adduce oral or documentary evidence if it considers necessary. The parties shall maintain status quo existing between them as on this day. Both parties shall bear the expenses relating to appointment of commissioner equally. The first appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals after complying with the direction of this Court within six months from the date of this judgment. With the above direction, both the second appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 30.03.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.404 of 2007 AND S.A.No.418 of 2007 DATE: 30.03.2011