THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO :997 of 2010 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment dated 24.06.2010 made in A.S.No.59 of 2007 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, whereby and whereunder, the Decree & Judgment dated 11.12.2006 made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, in O.S.No:60 of 2001 was confirmed. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of Rs.3,19,351/- being the principal and interest due by the defendant towards one quintal ground nut rate from 1991 till 2001 payable with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs by passing a decree against the defendant with a charge over the plaint schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff is the original grantee of an extent of about Ac.1,600-00 cents in Vempadu Agraharam in S.No.35 inclusive of the plaint schedule land, which was endowed to the plaintiff-temple for it’s maintenance. One Jagannadha Appa Rao granted the said extent as an Inam in favour of the plaintiff. But the original grant was lost and is not traced even by the date of commencement of the Madras (A.P.) Estates Abolition Act, 26 of 1948. After initiation of proceedings under A.P. Act 26 of 1948, one Potluri Lakshmanna Swamy filed O.S.No.69 of 1957 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, contending that the entire extent of Ac.1600.00 cents constituted an Estate of Vempadu Agraharam and that he and other ryots are in possession and that the plaintiff herein being a Landholder is not entitled to disturb their possession and was entitled only to the compensation to be awarded by the Government of A.P. on abolition of the Estate of Vempadu. The plaintiff contested the suit pleading that Vempadu Agraharam is not an Estate coming under Section 2 (3)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act,1908 and the extent of Ac.1,600.00 cents is only an Inam in the village Vempadu. The suit in O.S.No.69 of 1957 was dismissed and the appeal preferred by P. Lakshmana Swamy was also dismissed. But L.P. Appeal No.263 of 1968 preferred by him was allowed by this Court holding that Vempadu is an Estate and entire extent of Ac.1600- 00 cents formed as an Estate coming under the A.P. Estates Abolition Act and is liable to be taken over by the State Government and all the ryots in possession of the said land including the plaint schedule land have permanent occupancy rights and the plaintiff being a landholder had no right in the said land and is only entitled to compensation to be awarded by the State Government. Against the judgment in the above LPA, the plaintiff preferred Civil appeal No.2541 of 1972 in the Supreme Court of India. Meanwhile P. Lakshmana Swamy died and his legal representatives have been impleaded. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal, the subject mater was settled by a compromise and the same was recorded in the Civil Appeal by judgment, dated 18.4.1990 as stated hereunder: (1) “The ryots shall faithfully and promptly and timely pay to the temple one quintal ground nut or it’s equivalent price as fixed by the Agricultural Price Commissioner of Government of India, from time to time, on or before 31st December of each calendar year; (2) Correspondingly the Management of the temple would claim one quintal of groundnut per acre per annum of the equivalent price as afore assessed from the ryots and in the event of it’s non-payment by legal process and ryots would be debarred from denying their liability on any score before any Court of law; (3) The Judgment and Decree of the High Court conferring such status on the ryots shall be taken to have been burdened with the liability taken by the ryots and crafted by them in favour of the temple; Since the judgment and decree appealed for the first time has conferred such status on the ryots and the arrangement, though formally coming out of deliberations here between the parties to the suit, shall all the same govern the temple lands which by virtue of the judgment and decree of the High Court appealed against have been declared as a “Estate”. On such terms the appeal is disposed of and the judgment and decree of the High Court saddled therewith. There shall be no order as to costs.” The defendant is found to be in possession of the plaint schedule land as a ryot by the date of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court and he has been claiming to have acquired permanent occupancy rights therein and he did not vacate the schedule land inspite of being demanded by the officials of the plaintiff and also by publication in Andhra Parika Daily dated 16.12.1990. Hence, the suit. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and contending that the plaintiff has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of claim for the schedule land and that the plaint schedule land along with land covered by S.No.35 is a rotary land from times immemorial and the same is being treated as rotary land and this defendant purchased the plaint schedule property and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same since about 5 years after the death of his father and that he was not a party to the suit in O.S.No.69 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada and in the appeal before the High Court and the Supreme Court and that the orders passed therein are not binding on him and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any claim sought for in this suit. On the above pleadings, the Court of first instance framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff-temple is entitled to the suit amount and interest thereon ? 2) Whether the plaintiff-temple is entitled to claim one quintal ground nut per acre and its value as per the Judgment of Supreme Court of India? 3) Whether the temple is entitled to seek eviction? 4) To what relief? In order to substantiate its claim, the plaintiff examined Executive Officer as P.W.1 and got Exs.A1 and A2 marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below observed that admittedly, the entire extent of Ac.1600.00 cents of land, which was situated in Vempadu village Agraharam, is situated in Sy.No.35 and the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of the land in Sy.No.35 and now, the property being claimed by the defendant is in same survey number and except the oral evidence of the defendant, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendant got the plaint schedule property and that the name of the alleged vendor of the defendant and other particulars were not disclosed in the evidence of the defendant and in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the plaint schedule property exclusively belongs to the defendant and the same was purchased under registered sale deeds dated 21.7.1993 and that the defendant failed to prove that he purchased the schedule property from lawful owners and the plaintiff is entitled to collect the arrears of rent payable by the defendant without claiming any interest. Accordingly, the Court below decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.2,01,000/- with costs. Hence, the defendant carried the matter in appeal. But the said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that once the defendant is not a party to the suit, which was ended in a compromise recorded in Civil Appeal No.2541 of 1972, the plaintiff is not entitled to make any claim against the defendant and that O.S.No.69 of 1957 was filed by an individual in order to safeguard his individual rights, but not in a representative capacity on behalf of all the ryots and therefore, the judgment in Civil Appeal is not binding upon him. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that the suit in O.S.No.69 of 1957 was filed by one P. Lakshmanna Swamy in respect of entire extent of Ac.1600-00 cents. The said land is situated in Sy.No.35 of Vempadu village Agraharam and the schedule property claimed in the present suit is part and parcel of the same. Therefore, it can be presumed that the said suit was filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all the ryots. As can be seen from the judgments impugned herein, it is obvious that the defendant did not file any document in support of his claim and he did not disclose the name of his vendor and other particulars. It is apparent on the face of the record that the defendant failed to establish that the land held by his father is not part and parcel of the schedule land in O.S.No.69 of 1957. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below and in the light of the compromise recorded in Civil Appeal by the Apex Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the land held by the defendant is part and parcel of Ac.1600.00 of land involved in Civil Appeal. The grounds of appeal do not constitute any substantial question of law and therefore, I feel that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Dated:10.12.2010 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No:997 OF 2010 10.12.2010