THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.695 of 2011 Dated 23-11-2011 Between: Seeram Latchaya (died) and others. …Appellants. And: Kimidi Ramulu (died) and others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.695 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of decree and judgment in A.S.No.21 of 1988 dated 31-12-2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Palakonda on 10-8-1988 in O.S.No.14 of 1980. The first respondent herein was the original plaintiff and the appellants 1 and 2 herein were defendants. Since the first respondent and first appellant died, they are being represented by their respective Legal Representatives. Thus, appellants 3 to 7 are legal representatives of the first appellant and R.2 to R.4 are the L.Rs. of R.1. Parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The extent of the suit land is Ac.0-62 cents of dry land situated at N.K.Rajapuram. The case of the original plaintiff is that the said N.K.Rajapuram is an Inam Estate. Admittedly, by introduction of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into the Ryotwari) Act, 1948, enquiries were conducted with regard to the tenants who are cultivating the lands covered under the provisions of the Act. The ryots who were the cultivating land have approached the authorities under the Act. Initially, rough pattas were issued notifying the objections from the owners of the land and after completing enquiry, regular pattas were issued. The specific case of the plaintiff is that after due enquiry, Ex.A.1 rough patta had been issued to him by the Settlement Officer. It is not the case of the defendants or any other party that disputes arose between the first plaintiff and Anjaneyaswamy temple, who is the original owner of the land or that Ex.A.1 was subsequently cancelled by the authorities. The evidence on record reveals that the defendants are adjacent land owners. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendants without any right have trespassed into the suit land and therefore, they filed a suit for possession. The specific case of the defendants is that S.No.107/2 consisting of uncultivated Ac.0.70 cents of land (indicated in red colour in the suit schedule map) does not belong to Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple and plaintiff never cultivated the same at any point of time and that the defendants have purchased the said land under three registered sale deeds dated 27-3-1961, 8-1-1969 and 2-4-1969 along with their brothers and that they have perfected their title to the said land by adverse possession. The patta granted in favour of the plaintiff is not valid and binding on the defendants. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property? 2. Whether the defendants prescribed their title to the suit property by adverse possession? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, the original plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined another witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.28 marked. On behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.21. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and the same has been set aside by the appellate Court by its Judgment and decree dated 30-10- 1992 in A.S.No.21 of 1988. Aggrieved by the same, the original plaintiff filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.266 of 1995 and this Court allowed the Second Appeal and remanded the matter to the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court by impugned Judgment dismissed the appeal. Learned Counsel for the defendants relying on judgment of this Court reported in CHAKALA ANJAPPA v. BETAPPAGARI ANJANEYA ALIAS ANJAPPA AND OTHERS ([1]) submits that rough patta is not a document of title and title cannot be inferred from the rough patta granted under the Estates Abolition Act. He relying on the judgment of this Court reported, in ANDE GANGAIAH (DIED) PER L.Rs. AND ANOTHER v. M.KRISHNA REDDY ([2]) submits that, revenue record will not decide the title of a party and would not confer any title nor it take away any right existing in the rightful owner. It is also argued that both the Courts below committed error in decreeing the suit by relying on Ex.A.1 and revenue record. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants themselves have admitted that the original plaintiff had cultivated the land of Anjaneyaswamy temple. It is also his submission that though patta was granted in 1966 and since then, the original plaintiff had been in possession and he had been paying cist for several years. It is also argued that even if it is accepted that revenue record does not decide the title of a party, but, in view of the evidence on record and admissions in this case, the decision relied on by the other side i.e., 2nd cited, decision do not come to the rescue of the defendants. The trial Court also referred to the evidence of D.W.3 who deposed that he did not know the details of the land purchased by the defendants. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the original plaintiff had been cultivating the lands of Anjaneyaswamy temple and that the documents filed by the original plaintiff prove that he had been issued rough patta by the Settlement Officer and subsequently, he had been in possession of the land. It has to be seen that the suit filed by the original plaintiff is for recovery of possession. Of course, the learned counsel for the defendants is right in saying that the plaintiff has to prove his title. He is also right in saying that merely because defendant failed to prove their case or their version, a suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be decreed. The case of the defendants is that the sale deed is in favour of plaintiff’s is nominal and not intended to be acted upon and that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the property by virtue of the said sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant filed additional written statement taking a new plea that after estate has been taken over by the Government, survey and settlement authority granted patta in favour of the 1st defendant and that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The original plaintiff filed a rejoinder and in which he had stated that the defendant played fraud against the Village Officer in securing the rough patta and the same came to light only at the time of filing additional written statement. In 2nd cited decision relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants, the original owner of the land sold the land to one Prabhudas and his wife Smt. Kamalamma under a registered sale deed dated 15-4- 1965. However, the mutation was not effected in their names in the revenue records except to the extent that the possession column recorded their names. On enquiry, it was found that original owner sold land to Prabhudas and his wife but after their death, in revenue record it is shown as if his son succeeded to the property. In the above circumstances, this Court having observed that mere entering the names in revenue records, does not confer any right nor take away the right existing in a rightful owner, dismissed the writ appeal filed by the L.Rs. of Gangaiah in that case. As discussed above, the facts in that case are entirely different and hence, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. I have perused the entire record. Nothing has been pointed out to say that the findings of the Courts below are perverse or against the record. Basing on the available evidence, conclusions have to be drawn. It is not in dispute that the appellate Court allowed the parties to file additional documents. Thus Exs.A.29 to A.33 and Ex.B.22 and B.23 came to be marked. It is not in dispute that N.K.Rajapuram is an estate village. D.W.2 through whom defendants are claiming title admitted that he has no record to show that he was owner of S.No.107/2. Admittedly, defendants were not issued any rough patta. They have not challenged the rough patta issued to the original plaintiff. Basing on the evidence, the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff can reconvey his possession. There is no need to seek declaration of title in each and every case. Basing on prior possession, the plaintiff can recover the possession. Plaintiff alleged that he was dispossessed in July,1979. He presented plaint on 16-1-1980 i.e., within 6 months, so he can seek reconvey of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A reading of the entire material gives an impression that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The concurrent findings cannot be disturbed unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or illegal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 23-11-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.695 of 2011 Dated 23-11-2011 [1] 1990 (2) A.P.L.J. 41 [2] 2010 (1) ALT 204 (D.B.)