THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.No. 931 of 2006 Date:02.12.2010 Between: K.Seshagiri Rao …Appellant And The State of A.P. rep. by the District Collector,Khammam and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.No. 931 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2003 passed by the IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-III), at Khammam in A.S.No.36 of 2003 wherein he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2002 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli in O.S.No.49 of 1994. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Originally the first plaintiff filed the suit and pending second appeal, he died. Appellants 2 to 7 were brought on record as legal representatives. The suit was filed seeking relief of altering the entries in the pahanies and other revenue records in respect of the suit schedule land at Yagnanarayanapuram of Kallur mandal, Khammam District. According to the appellants, the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property and they have absolute rights over the property, but the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam mutated the pattadar’s name as that of Anjaneya Swamy Temple by deleting the name of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court after full trial, dismissed the suit on the ground that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the appellants in proof of the claim made in the suit. The judgment and decree dated 21.02.2002 was confirmed by the first appellate Court by its judgment dated 18.11.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present second appeal. The appellants also filed S.A.C.M.P.No. 2080 of 2006 to accord permission to adduce some documentary evidence which are said to be the certified copies of the pahanies issued by the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Kullur mandal and mark them as exhibits in the second appeal. The said additional evidence petition has been taken up for hearing along with the second appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that when they applied for certified copies of the pahanies, the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned issued a memo stating that chowfasla of 1338 Fasli was not available which is marked as Ex.A-6 in the suit and therefore, the first appellant was unable to adduce any documentary evidence before the Courts below and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal directing the trial Court to receive the documents now filed in the S.A.C.M.P.No.2080 of 2006 as additional evidence. Unless a substantial question of law is involved, this Court cannot interfere in the second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. In the instant case, after full fledged trial, the trial Court held that the first appellant did not produce any evidence showing his title and possession and therefore, he is not entitled for the relief prayed for and the said finding was confirmed by the first appellate Court. Therefore, there is a concurrent finding of the fact in regard to the issue that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the patta stands in their name and it was subsequently mutated without notice to the parties. Even if the contention that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a memo dated 11.02.1994 stating that the pahanies and other documents relating to plaint schedule land are available, the proper course open to the first appellant was to summon the records from the revenue authorities to the Court, but he did not take any such steps. The suit was filed in the year 1994 and the additional evidence petition was filed in the year 2006. In view of the above stated reasons, the appellants failed to take appropriate steps to adduce sufficient documentary evidence though there was opportunity for them to do so before the courts below. Moreover, Section 8 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 bars the civil suit in respect of any claim relating to an entry in any record of rights. As per Section 8 of the Act, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and if any such declaration is made, the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with such order. The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 provides a complete mechanism in respect of making or altering the entries in the record of rights and a civil suit cannot be filed on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer erroneously mutated the pattadar’s name of the plaint schedule. The appropriate remedy available for the appellants therefore is, to file a suit seeking declaration of their title. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal and the suit filed by the appellants itself is not maintainable. The second appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S.A.C.M.P.No. 2080 of 2006 is also dismissed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Date:02.12.2010 ccm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.No.931 of 2006 Date:02.12.2010