IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1203 of 2009 Between: Navanaga Bhadraiah ..... Appellant AND Navanaga Ganapathi .....Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri Ch. Dhananjaya The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1203 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 21.07.2009 in A.S.No.83 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2004 in O.S.No.30 of 1998 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit filed for perpetual injunction against the respondent. His case is that he is the only son of late Pottenna and has inherited all the ancestral properties after the death of his father, that he was working in ITDA, Seethampeta, that Sy.No.77/10 of Changudi Village comprised Ac.0.09 cents, wherein the appellant has half share on southern side and that the said land had 16 teak trees. It is the further case of the appellant that the northern half share belongs to one Navagana Seetharam, who is his agnate and that the appellant has perfected his title and possession over the suit schedule land. That the revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass books and title deeds recognizing the appellant’s title over the scheduled land and that the respondent, being the powerful person, is interfering with his possession of the land by committing theft of the standing teak trees. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit for permanent injunction. The respondent filed a written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. It is the pleaded case of the respondent that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of his undivided extent out of Ac.0.09 cents along with PW.2, who is the father-in-law of the appellant, that due to some disputes, the respondent’s father filed O.S.No.83 of 1991 out of which A.S.No.53 of 1997 in the Court of the District Court, Srikakulam, arose and that since the year 1991, the appellant’s father-in-law Seetharam is inimical to the respondent. It is further averred that the appellant, being a revenue employee, used his influence and got included the suit schedule extent in his pattadar pass books and title deeds and that on the respondent approaching the Mandal Revenue Officer under the provision of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”), he conducted enquiry and cancelled the entry made in the record of rights vide his proceedings dated 28.11.1998. Having regard to the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues. “1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief?” After full-fledged trial, the trial Court has dismissed the suit, rendering findings against the appellant on all issues. A.S.No.83 of 2004 filed by the appellant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam by judgment dated 21.07.2009, confirming the findings of the trial Court. The appellant has therefore filed the present second appeal. At the hearing, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Exs.A1 to A12, which constitute revenue record, unmistakably prove the appellant’s possession and that both the Courts below have committed serious error in ignoring the said record and by relying upon Ex.B1, dated 28.11.1998, which came into existence after filing of the suit. The learned counsel submitted that both the Courts below have grievously erred in placing reliance on Ex.B1, as the same was not in existence at the time of filing of the suit. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. One of the main reasons for the Courts below in declining the relief of injunction claimed by the appellant is that by Ex.B1, Mandal Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, has rendered a conclusive finding that the appellant has no right over the land in question and that the entry made in the revenue record in his favour was not correct. The Courts below have further taken note of the fact that on the basis of the fair adangal register and other revenue records produced by the respondent the record of rights was altered by deleting the name of the appellant and entering the name of the respondent. These findings would clearly go to show that the entries in the revenue records made in favour of the appellant, which are reflected in the documentary evidence adduced by the appellant in the suit, have become inconsequential with the issuance of Ex.B1 in favour of the respondent. It is not the pleaded case of the appellant that he has initiated any proceedings under the provisions of the Act for questioning the validity of Ex.B1. Under Section 6 of the Act, every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Though Ex.B1 appeared to have issued subsequent to the filing of the suit, the act of deletion of the appellant’s name from the record of rights and inclusion of the respondent’s name therein can be said to relate back to the earlier period, as such act undertaken by the Mandal Revenue Officer was stated to be on the basis of his finding that the name of the appellant was wrongly included in the revenue record. As the appellant failed to assail the validity of Ex.B1, the Courts below are justified in placing reliance on the said proceedings despite the fact that the same was issued subsequent to the filing of the suit. So long as the entries in Ex.B1 remained unchallenged, the appellant cannot claim with any legitimacy that he still continues in possession of the property. Unless the appellant files a substantive suit for declaration of his title and succeeds therein, he cannot claim the property in respect of which the name of the respondent is entered in the record of rights. Inasmuch as the Courts below have considered the various factual aspects in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction, I do not find any substantial question of law in this second appeal for interference with the judgments of the Courts below. For the abovementioned reasons, the second appeal is dismissed. This order will not preclude the appellant from asserting his title over the property by filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.12.2010 ES