THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2011 Dated:11.08.2011 Between: Anasuri Ratnam .. Appellant And Anasuri Krishna and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 06.07.2010 in A.T.A.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge-cum-appellate authority, Kakinada, under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. By the said order, the learned District Judge reversed the order dated 29.08.2006 in A.T.C.No.47 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and dismissed the application of the petitioner for eviction of the respondents. The fact of the matter leading to revision is as follows. Anasuri Pullaiah, father of the first respondent and the grand father of the second respondent owned an extent of Acs.3.54 cents of land in Survey No.7/2 of Medaline Village in Kakinada Municipal area. Claiming herself to be the owner of Ac.0.50 cents out of the said land, the petitioner instituted A.T.C.No.47 of 1999 for eviction of respondents. She alleged that at the time of her marriage, Pullaiah gave Ac.0.50 cents of land to her under gift deed - Ex.A1, dated 23.11.1979; that it was being cultivated by the first respondent duly paying maktha; that during 1998-1999 in spite of repeated demands, the first respondent committed default in payment of maktha and that after giving notice, she filed the application for eviction. The respondents opposed the eviction petition. They contended that Pullaiah executed a gift deed - Ex.B3, dated 06.03.1981, in favour of his grand son - the second respondent herein, and that he alone cultivated the same. The allegation of the petitioner that she is in possession of the property was disputed besides alleging that the first respondent is not the owner of the land and the gift deed is not acted upon. As noticed supra, the Special Officer allowed the application relying on the gift deed and on the evidence of PW.1. The appellate authority thoroughly discussed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that she is the owner of the property. The learned appellate Judge also recorded a finding that as PW.1 – the petitioner herein, was not able to identify the boundaries, survey number or the description of the land and that she was not even aware as to whether the land in S.No.7/2 was bifurcated or not. It was also found that PW.2 brought the registers of thumb impression of Pullaiah which was in a different volume and the actual gift deed was in another volume. Therefore, the order of the Special Officer was reversed. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the gift deed is a registered one and, therefore, the appellate Court could not have ignored it, especially when it is a thirty years old document. The said submission cannot be accepted. The proof of gift deed is one thing and the plea and proof of the question whether gift deed was acted upon is another thing. In this case, PW.1 did not prove that the gift deed was not acted upon her. It is a question of fact on which by giving cogent and convincing reasons the appellate Judge found against the petitioner. No interference is called for. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 11.08.2011 KH