IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH [14TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE. Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Second Appeal No.769 of 2009 Between: Reddi Raminaidu And another … Appellants And: Reddi Sanyasinaidu & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Second Appeal No.769 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.06.2009 in AS No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein, the appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment dated 11.04.2008 made in OS No.81 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of Ac.1.09 cents of land in Sy.No.86/1A situate in Thotapalli Revenue village in Garugubilli Mandal and for a direction to the defendants 1 and 2 to pay 3/4th of compensation, amounting to Rs.1,89,925/-. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs 1 and 3 and 3rd defendant and one Lakshmunaidu were the children of Gowri Naidu. Lakshmunaidu pre-deceased his father. The 2nd plaintiff is the wife of Lakshmunaidu. Gowri Naidu was the absolute owner of the suit land. After his death, the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant succeeded to his state. The government acquired certain lands including the suit land for construction of Thotapalli reservoir. In view of rival claims between the plaintiffs on one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other, the amount of compensation payable by 4th defendant was kept in abeyance. During the course of enquiry by the Land Acquisition Authorities, plaintiffs requested 4th defendant to grant some more time so as to enable them to produce proof of title. But 4th defendant paid the compensation of Rs.1,19,900/- to the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of 1/4th share each from out of the compensation amount, which was paid entirely to the defendants 1 and 2. 4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land and during enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, it was ascertained that the defendants are entitled for payment of compensation. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title? 2. Whether they are entitled to the direction against D.1 and D.2 to pay the suit amount? 3. To what relief> 5. During the trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. DWs.1 and 2 were examined, but no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held on issue No.1 that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant succeeded to the suit land after the death of their father Gowri Naidu and they are the owners of the suit land; on issue No.2, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled for direction prayed for regarding the payment of amount. Accordingly, the suit was decreed, directing defendants 1 and 2 to pay Rs.29,975/- to each of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, totaling to Rs.89,925/- towards their 1/4th share each. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred appeal in AS No.9 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. By the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal by the defendants 1 and 2. 6. As seen from the judgments of the Courts below, it was found based on the evidence available on record that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant were found to be owners of the suit land having inherited the same from their father Gowri Naidu and they laid their claim on the basis of Ex.A.1 patta. On the other hand, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to establish their claim over the suit land. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to establish their title. Though Ex.A.1 is only rough patta and it is not a conclusive proof of title, still it shows that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as owners thereof. The defendants 1 and 2 on the other hand have not adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of their claim of ownership over the suit land. Ex.A.1 rough patta and Ex.A.2 ryot pass book were issued long prior to the land acquisition proceedings and the Courts below have rightly placed reliance on Exs.A.1 and A.2 observing that there was no reason to suspect that they were created in anticipation of land acquisition proceedings. As the evidence on record was found to be sufficient to establish the claim of the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant over the suit land and there being no iota of evidence to the contra on the defendants’ side, the trial Court has decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the first appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence available on record. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on question of fact, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court in the second appeal. 7. In ‘VEERAYEE AMMAL VS. SEENI AMMAL[1]’, the Apex court held while deprecating the practice of liberal construction and generous application of provisions of Section 100 by the High Courts, observed as follows: “It is distressing that despite amendment, the provisions of Section 100 of the Code have been liberally construed and generously applied by some judges of the High Courts with the result that the objective intended to be achieved by the amendment of Section 100 appears to have been frustrated. Even before the amendment of Section 100 of the Code, the concurrent finding of facts could not be disturbed in the second appeal”. 8. For the reasons stated above and in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is held that there being no question of law muchless substantial question of law arising for consideration in the second appeal, there are absolutely no merits in the second appeal. 9. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2009 Bss [1] (2002) 1 SCC 134