THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.212 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.641 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-04 cents in Sy.No.198/2 situated at Thenebanda revenue village, Chittoor Mandal and District. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 19-08-2004, against which, the appellant filed A.S.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, which was also dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 09-09-2009. Against which, the present Second Appeal is filed by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the suit property was purchased by his father vide Ex.A-1-Sale Deed, dated 24-06-1970 and the said property was fallen to his share vide partition deed, dated 28-07-1995. Thereafter, the revenue authorities also mutated his name in the revenue records by issuing Exs.A-3 and A-4 pattadar pass book and title deed. While so, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings, dated 07-09-1998, cancelling patta stating that the plaint schedule property was originally assigned in favour of one Yethirajulu Naidu of Thenabanda village and the sale of the said land by the wife and the son of the said assignee is hit by Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977 (for short the “Act”). After receipt of the said proceedings, the appellant came to know that the said property is not patta land but it is an assigned land. Even otherwise, the appellant having been in possession and enjoyment for more than 30 years has perfected his title by adverse possession. Therefore, the appellant filed the said suit. A written statement was filed by the respondents herein stating that the suit land was assigned in favour of Yethirajulu Naidu under DKT No.AM/111/4/87, dated 30-11-1957, and the same was alienated by his wife and son under Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 24-06-1970 in favour of the father of the appellant, which is said to have been fallen to his share under Ex.A-2- partition deed and alienation of the said assigned land is in contravention of the Act. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 19-08-2004. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred appeal before the District Judge, Chittoor. The appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record held that appellant in his cross-examination admitted that the plaint schedule property is an assigned land assigned in favour of one Yethirajulu Naidu and that his wife and son sold the said land under Ex.A-1-Sale Deed to his father. It is also admitted that notices were also issued to the original assignee as well as his father for resumption of the said land and against the said resumption orders, the appeal preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer was also dismissed. Further appeal before the Joint Collector was also dismissed confirming the order of the resumption. Therefore, the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Second Appeal is filed. In the instant case, it is the case of the appellant that the said property was purchased by the father of the appellant vide Ex.A-1-Sale Deed, dated 24-06-1970 and the said property was fallen to his share vide partition deed, dated 28-07-1995. Thereafter, the revenue authorities also mutated his name in the revenue records by issuing Exs.A-3 and A-4 pattadar pass book and title deed. While so, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings, dated 07-09-1998, cancelling patta stating that the plaint schedule property was originally assigned in favour of one Yethirajulu Naidu of Thenabanda village and the sale of the said land by the wife and the son of the said assignee is hit by Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977 (for short the “Act”). The appellant further took a plea that his father is a small farmer and, therefore, he is protected by Section 3(5) of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act reads as follows:- “Nothing in this Section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house- site on the date of such commencement.” I am of the opinion that if the said plea if at all is available to the father of the appellant, he ought to have pleaded during resumption proceedings and the resumption proceedings passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer are confirmed by the appellate authority i.e., Revenue Divisional officer as well as the revisional authority i.e., Joint Collector. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has acquired title by virtue of Ex.A-1-Sale Deed and Ex.A- 2-Partition Deed, as the orders passed under the Act have become final and it is not open for the appellant to question the same before the Civil Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary, rightly dismissed the suit. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 06-08-2010 Prv