* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO +SECOND APPEAL No.636 of 1999 % Dated 21.02.2011 # Kuthuru Narasimha Reddy .... APPELLANT Vs. $ Pusala Venkataiah & 3 others. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: - Sri P.Srinivas ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: - Sri Y.Jagan Mohan < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.636 of 1999 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999 in A.S.No.1 of 1998 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.05.1997 passed in O.S.No.1132 of 1992 by the District Munsif, Huzurabad, and granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the entire suit schedule land, the defendant filed the Second Appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit in respect of an agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.17 guntas wet land in Survey No.501 situated at Saidapur Revenue Mandal, for the relief of perpetual injunction, contending that the plaint schedule land is the land belonging to their father, it is their ancestral property and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the father of the plaintiffs and his brothers sold Ac.1.00 of land, out of the plaint schedule land of Ac.2.17 guntas, in Sy.No.501, to him, under an unregistered sale deed dated 09.09.1960 and since the date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Before the trial Court, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs, whereas D.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.16 were marked on behalf of the defendant. Upon considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court, mainly basing on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971, showing that the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 is in possession of the defendant and basing on the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer that, on enquiry, he came to know that the defendant purchased the said land under an unregistered sale deed and since then he is continuing in possession of the land and also taking into consideration that Ex.B.1 and the certified copies of pahanis filed by the defendant showed that the defendant is in possession of Ac.1.00 of land, decreed the suit to the plaintiffs in respect of an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas and dismissed the suit for the remaining Ac.1.00 of the land. As against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court, observing that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Ex.B.3 certificate dated 10.12.1992 validating Ex.P.16 unregistered sale deed, while the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was pending and also there was an interlocutory order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs passed in an application filed by them. It is also noticed by the 1st appellate Court that the plaintiffs sent Ex.A.11 objection petition dated 04.12.1991 and Ex.A.12 objection petition dated 11.11.1992, to the Mandal Revenue Officer, stating that the defendant obtained Ex.B.13 in a deceitful manner without notice to the plaintiffs. However, the fact remains that the plaintiffs, challenging the order of M.R.O., have filed an appeal before the R.D.O., but the same was dismissed. The learned first appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that the pahanis filed by the plaintiffs show that the plaintiffs are in possession of plaint schedule land from the date of filing of suit and earlier to that, the lands were kept fallow without any cultivation as evident from the entries recorded in the pahanis. The learned first appellate Court specifically considered in its judgment, the important fact that though D.W.3, the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, who was subjected to thorough examination as to the genuineness of the documents basing on which he gave the deposition, admitted in his evidence that the relevant record is not available with him and that he cannot give even particulars with regard to the subject matter without verifying the records. Therefore, obviously, as noticed by the learned first appellant Court, the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer is given without verifying any records. In view of the specific contention that the alleged enquiry was conducted in a deceitful manner without notice to the plaintiffs, the burden is on the defendant to summon the relevant records relating to the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act and even though the defendant examined D.Ws.1 to 3, he did not take any steps to summon the relevant record before the trial Court. Having held so, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, setting side the judgment passed by the trial Court and granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the entire suit schedule land. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred the present second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendant. Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- defendant, argued that the proceedings and orders under Section 5-A of R.O.R.Act conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer were confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter there being no challenge to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, it became final and the same cannot be called in question on the ground that the proceedings are not properly conducted. He would further submit that as per Section 8 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, no suit shall lie against the Government or any Officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended, and that the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file suit to declare his right under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any declaratory decree passed in such civil suit. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, the first appellate Court went wrong in viewing the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the certificate issued under Ex.B.13 with suspicion, which is not permissible as per section 8 of the 1971 Act and the decree of the first appellate Court be, therefore, reversed. I am unable to agree with the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. Admittedly, while the civil suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs, which is nothing but the present suit, was pending before the Civil Court, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Ex.B.13 certificate. Further, the defendant, except mere examining Mandal Revenue Officer as D.W.3, on his behalf, did not take any steps to summon the records, in spite of specific questions put to D.W.3 in the cross-examination that the said enquiry is conducted in a deceitful way without notice to the plaintiff and without following any procedure. Therefore, this a serious lapse in the case of the defendant. The authorities under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 are not competent to adjudicate upon the rights or title of contending parties. The proceedings before them are for limited purpose of making/amending/maintaining true and consistent entries in the revenue records basing on the enquiry conducted under the provisions of 1971 Act. Thus they are Court of limited jurisdiction. The entry in Record of Rights is only a piece of evidence in proof of title or possession before the civil Court. Although it cannot be said that during the pendency of a civil suit, the authorities under the Act shall not make any entries in the record of Rights by making enquiry under the provisions of the Act, such entries are certainly subject to scrutiny by the civil Court. The civil Court while deciding the rights, title or possession of the parties apart from considering the entries in revenue records, will take into consideration several other aspects such as documents of title, oral evidence and pleadings of parties. In the adjudicatory process, the civil Court may hold that an entry is made incorrectly or improperly or without notice to the party having rights in the subject matter of dispute. The civil Court is also competent to declare the proceedings before the authorities under the Act as void. The submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant about the lack of competence of the civil Court to pronounce upon the genuineness or validity of the entries made in the revenue records therefore has no legal force. Here is a case, where the plaintiffs asserted that the plaint schedule property is their ancestral property and that they are in possession of the said property. In view of the contentions urged by the defendant, at best, it can be said that the title of the plaintiffs is under dispute, in which event the plaintiffs can maintain a suit for injunction simpliciter. Further, basing on the evidence on record, the learned first appellate Court held that on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court is justified in granting temporary injunction reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of entire suit schedule property. Further the decision of the first appellate Court is final insofar as finding of fact is concerned. This Court can only interfere, if the said finding is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record or based on no evidence. In the instant case, the first appellate Court gave convincing reasons for it’s decision while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Since the decision rendered by the first appellate Court is based on evidence, it cannot be said to be perverse, requiring interference by this Court in this Second Appeal. No substantial question of law is involved for consideration by this Court, for entertaining the Second Appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 21st February, 2011 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/o.PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.636 of 1999 Dated 21.02.2011