IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.936 OF 1997 BETWEEN Badugu Raja Rao (died) per LRs and four others. …APPELLANTS AND Badugu Maridi (died) per LRs. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. P. VENU GOPAL Counsel for Respondents: MR. K.V. SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This is plaintiffs’ appeal questioning the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court, Amalapuram in A.S.No.25 of 1991 dated 20.10.1997 whereunder the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the District Munsif, Mummidivaram in O.S.No.340 of 1983 dated 07.02.1991 was set aside. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and for delivery of possession by ejecting the defendant and for future profits. The said suit was resisted by the defendant disputing the survey numbers as well as the extents, as mentioned, in the plaint and asserting that the defendant is enjoying the suit schedule property for several years and that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the said property. During the trial, the plaintiffs also realised that the survey numbers mentioned in the suit schedule were incorrect and their claim was actually relating to different survey numbers than the one shown in the plaint schedule. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed an application being I.A.No.947 of 1990 seeking amendment of the plaint by substituting correct survey numbers and that application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 05.12.1990. Later, the trial Court considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and one of the principal reasons, which weighed with the trial Court in decreeing the suit, was that the plaintiffs had got the suit schedule survey numbers correctly mentioned by amending the plaint vide orders in IA, referred to above and thereby, not only the suit survey numbers but the extents covered under the present suit also were amended and satisfied with the title, as pleaded and evidence, as produced by the plaintiffs, decreed the suit. 4. On appeal, being A.S.No.25 of 1991, the lower appellate Court re- examined the matter on the principal question concerning the amendment of survey numbers and extents in the plaint schedule and it has recorded that the findings of the trial Court in para 7 of the judgment that the suit survey numbers and extents were amended vide orders in I.A.No.947 of 1990 was found to be factually incorrect. The lower appellate Court, therefore, recorded a finding, after verifying the record, that by the said IA for amendment only the survey numbers were amended but not their extents. In view of that the plaintiffs having failed to show the correct extents with reference to the amended survey numbers mentioned in the plaint schedule, the lower appellate Court was of the view that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden cast on them for showing their entitlement for declaration of title and consequential possession. The appeal, accordingly, was allowed. 5. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has very strenuously contended in support of the substantial questions of law framed in ground No.15 (a) to (c) of the memorandum of grounds of appeal with reference to the other evidence on record. However, during the hearing of the appeal, as there was conflict with respect to noting of the actual order passed in I.A.No.947 of 1990, in the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate court, by order dated 24.06.2011, I had called for record relating to I.A.No.947 of 1990. After the receipt of the record, the matter was heard again and both the learned counsel had taken note of the order dated 05.12.1990 passed in I.A.No.947 of 1990, which is as follows: “Counter filed. Heard both sides. Since the petition is filed for simple amendment of survey numbers, I have not find any merits for dismissal of this petition. Hence this petition is allowed in the circumstances without costs.” 6. It is, therefore, evident from the above that the amendment application in I.A.No.947 of 1990 was filed only with respect to correcting the survey numbers and not with reference to extents and thereby, the lower appellate Court was right and justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, as there was no evidence by the plaintiffs in support of their claim for declaration and possession with respect to the amended survey numbers and their corresponding extents. Furthermore, the corresponding extents of the survey numbers, as amended, was not even otherwise pleaded by the plaintiffs and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in decreeing the suit without noticing the said basic defect in the case of the plaintiffs. The substantial questions of law, therefore, are liable to be answered against the appellants/plaintiffs and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 23, 2011 DSK