THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.54 of 2010 ORDER: Appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.107 of 1987 filed in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule tamarind trees and recovery of possession of two trees in item No.1. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 26.02.2009, against which, the appellants filed A.S.No.105 of 1999 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor but the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 22.10.2009, against which, this Second Appeal is filed. The trial Court dismissed the above-mentioned suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Ex.A.1 pertains to the suit trees or that the suit trees were assigned to the first plaintiff and Fathima Bee under 2 C patta in 1957 or that the rights have been created by the land holder in favour of Chinnaiah Chetty, who executed Ex.A.1, and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the suit trees. It further held that the patta granted in favour of the first plaintiff was cancelled and the same was subsequently confirmed by the higher Tribunals and therefore, cancellation of the 2C patta and subsequent orders confirming cancellation of it are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are prevented from setting up of title hostile to the Government, as the patta granted in their favour has already been cancelled. It also held that Ex.B.1 has no relevance for the decision of the suit to resolve the controversy. The lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence held that the patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs was cancelled by the Government and the same has become final. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgments of the Courts below. I am of the opinion that the Courts below did not commit any error in holding that there is nothing to connect Ex.A.6 with the suit trees and cancellation of 2C patta by the revenue authorities is not illegal. Admittedly, the said cancellation of 2C patta by the revenue authorities has become final. Therefore, I am of the view that the Courts below properly considered the evidence available on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established their right over the suit tamarind trees. Hence, I do not see any substantial ground that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 19th MARCH, 2010. kvni