HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU S.A.No.668 of 1999 JUDGMENT: Subject matter of this second appeal filed by the defendant is Ac.2.49 cents out of Ac.4.98 cents in S.No.244 of Mruthyunjayapuram @ Neerpaku Kota village survey group – Kampalem village of Buchi Naidu Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court for declaration of his title to the suit land and for possession of the same from the defendant. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff after she lost the previous suit O.S.No.365 of 1988 for permanent injunction. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s claim for title and possession. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit; and on appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court confirmed the said decree. It made the defendant to approach this Court with this second appeal. 2. It is the plaintiff’s claim inter alia that she purchased the suit land from PW.2 A.Gopalaiah under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dated 24.03.1988 and that PW.2 and his son were entitled for the entire land by virtue of Ex.A.2 order dated 26.12.1980 of the settlement Officer, Nellore granting ryotwari patta in their favour under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act). By the time, the appeal was pending in the lower appellate Court, Ex.A.2 order of settlement Officer was cancelled by Director of Settlements, Hyderabad in Ex.B.4 order dated 18.04.1996. Thereupon, the plaintiff approached the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad by way of appeal on Ex.B.4 order passed by the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. Ex.A.10 is copy of grounds of appeal filed before the Commissioner. Both the counsel stated that the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad set aside Ex.B.4 order passed by Director of Settlements, Hyderabad and remitted the matter to the Settlement Officer for de novo enquiry and adjudication and that the said enquiry is pending before the Settlement Officer. It is further reported by both the counsel in this Court that not only the plaintiff but also the defendant approached the Settlement Officer for grant of patta under Section 11 of the Act in their respective favour and the claims of both the parties are yet to be decided by the Settlement Officer. 3. In view of the above subsequent events, Ex.A.2 patta does not hold the field now. The Courts below mainly based their decisions on Ex.A.2. When basis of the said decisions no longer exists, it would be just and necessary that this litigation has to be adjudicated afresh in the absence of Ex.A.2 patta by the lower Courts, without reference to Ex.A.2. 4. Therefore, the second appeal is allowed setting aside the decrees passed by the Courts below and remanding the suit to the trial Court to decide the issues afresh on the basis of title and for possession without reference to Ex.A.2 patta and after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead any further evidence both oral and documentary. No costs. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.10th April, 2013 PNV