THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.Nos.2248 of 1998 and 897 of 1999 and A.S.M.P.Nos.2010 of 2005 and 1760 of 2011 in A.S.No.2248 of 1998 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These two appeals are filed against the same judgment and decree dated 17.08.1998 passed by I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.63 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs as far as declaration of title and recovery of possession of the vacant land, partly decreed it granting permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the house property by the plaintiffs, leaving it open to the Government for recovery of possession of the house or for eviction in appropriate proceedings, if any. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under: The first plaintiff originally instituted O.S.No.266 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Hyderabad West & South, against defendants 1 to 3 - Central University for permanent injunction in respect of the land in S.Nos.25/2, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5 and 25/6 admeasuring 60 acres, including a house bearing No.1-67, situated at Gachi Bowli Village, Taluk West, Hyderabad. On the plea taken by the Central University, the fourth defendant – State was added as a party to the suit. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge and numbered as O.S.No.310 of 1984. Later, the suit was amended seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property also vide order dated 18.12.1991 in I.A.No.1430 of 1991. Subsequently, it was transferred to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad and numbered as O.S.No.63 of 1993. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and hence plaintiffs 2 to 17 were brought on record as her legal representatives. The pleas taken by the plaintiffs in the suit are that they are in possession of the said 60 acres of land. Originally in 1931, late Sri N.Ramakrishna Rao, husband of the first plaintiff, took the suit land including pucca house bearing No.1-67 surrounded by a compound wall and also a well, on perpetual lease from the then H.E.H, the Nizam. Subsequently, a part of the land bearing Survey No.25 admeasuring 2300 acres was purchased by the Hyderabad Agricultural Co-operative Association Limited (hereinafter referred to as “HACA”). The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired the land under the occupation of the HACA and gave it to Integrated Milk Society, but later the said land was given to the first defendant- University. HACA put forth the claim over Rs.40.00 lakhs by claiming compensation against the Government. While so, on 07.02.1961, late N. Ramakrishna Rao entered into partnership with three others, namely, Smt.Vijayalakshmi, Smt.Rajyalakshmi and Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, who filed A.S.M.P.No.2010 of 2005 to implead themselves as parties in the appeal under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C, for running a Dairy Farm. Since the date of constitution of the partnership firm, all the partners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The plaintiffs and others approached the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West in the year 1967 for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the suit lands. The Tahsildar, after verifying all the records, recommended to the Collector, Hyderabad vide his letter No.C2/6164/66, dated 12.01.1967 for survey and sub-division of the entire land. The then Collector, Hyderabad District with the consultation of the Director of Settlement got the land surveyed and sub-divided the suit land as Survey Nos.25/2, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5 and 25/6 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas, Acs.13.20 guntas, Acs.14.00, Acs.14.00 and Acs.18.00 respectively. A clear demarcation was made between the lands in occupation of the Milk Project Authorities and the suit land in occupation of the plaintiffs and others. Though a supplementary sethwar was issued, the plaintiffs name and other partners’ names were not mutated in the Revenue Records of Ranga Reddy District and the matter is pending with the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District by way of appeal. The Central University Authorities, on number of occasions, tried to encroach into the suit land, but the plaintiffs along with their partners managed to resist the attempts made by the defendants successfully and necessary legal notices were sent to the University as well as the Government not to interfere with the plaintiffs’ and their partners possession over the suit schedule property, in May, 1977. While so, the second defendant employed hundreds of labourers for digging the foundation of compound wall in the suit land on 08.11.1979. Though the plaintiffs protested and tried to stop the construction, the second defendant refused and proceeded with the construction. Hence, the above suit is filed to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule land; to deliver the possession of the suit schedule land to the plaintiffs together with the construction thereon and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their partners over the suit land. In the written statement filed by the first defendant on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 denying the plaint averments, it is stated that the entire land in Survey No.25 was a Government “Kancha” land and the H.E.H, the Nizam had no right to lease out the same to the husband of the first plaintiff; that late Nizam was treated as a trespasser and Shivai-e- Jamabandi was levied and collected from H.E.H, the Nizam treating the property as the Government property; that the Government of Andhra Pradesh handed over the entire land in Survey No.25 to the defendant- University on 25.03.1975 for establishing Central University under 6- Point Formula; that in pursuance of the undertaking given by the State Government earlier, an extent of Acs.2725.22 guntas of land in Kancha Gachi Bowli Village was handed over to the Central University on 25.03.1975 and since then they are in possession of the same and that a compound wall over the entire area of 13 KMs was constructed by them with the prior approval of the Central Government. In the said written statement while denying that the husband of the first plaintiff and three other persons were running a Dairy Farm in partnership in the suit land, it is stated that for the first time, the first plaintiff has set up lease of the land from the former Nizam of Hyderabad and filed the present suit; that the first plaintiff neither filed the copy of the alleged lease deed nor it was mentioned in any of the revenue records; that in the so-called revenue records submitted by the plaintiffs, the name of the Central University was struck off and some entries have been made by the Patwari; that the first plaintiff and her partners in collusion with some unscrupulous Revenue Officials must have manipulated the said entries with a view to give colour to their unholy claim; that on behalf of the Central University an appeal has been filed before the Revenue Authorities for rectification and correction of the entries in the Pahanies for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79; that the so called supplementary sethwar was not implemented by the Revenue Authorities and even the name of Late Nizam of Hyderabad was not entered in the revenue records; that the said supplementary sethwar was rejected by the then Tahsildar in the year 1975; that neither patta was granted in favour of the Late Nizam nor the names of the plaintiffs were mutated; that the faisal patties for all the years earlier to 1975 and the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 show the names of HACA and the Integrated Milk Project as possessors; that while describing the land as “Poramboke” or “Sarkari Kancha”, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took over the land from HACA and handed over the same to the Officer on Special Duty of University of Hyderabad on 25.03.1975 and since then the University of Hyderabad is in undisturbed and peaceful possession of the land. While denying that the defendant-University employed hundreds of labourers and dug foundations for constructing the compound wall in the suit land, the defendant-University stated that the construction of the compound wall was in progress since 1976 and construction of about 12,400 meters i.e., 12 KMs of the length of the compound wall covering a part of the area was already completed and a portion of about 600 meters only was to be constructed and that the suit for mere injunction without declaration of title or declaration of their right to be in possession is not maintainable and has to be dismissed in limini. It is also stated that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and the defendant-University has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession since 25.03.1975. It is further stated that the suit based on prior possession alone without proof of title, filed after six months from the date of dispossession is not maintainable; that the Government of India neither recognized nor accepted Kancha Gachi Bowli as the private property of the Late Nizam; that mere list of Late Nizam’s private properties showing the Kancha in Gachi Bowli Village as one of the properties of Late Nizam is not conclusive proof of his title and the said document is not authentic and cannot be admitted in evidence; that the so called supplementary sethwar issued by the Revenue Authorities in the year 1967 giving sub- division numbers was never implemented by the Government, and therefore, the certified copy of the supplementary sethwar cannot be relied upon for proving the title of the plaintiffs and that they came to know that the supplementary sethwar issued in the year 1967 was rejected by the Settlement Authorities and it was never implemented. The State of Andhra Pradesh, fourth defendant filed a separate written statement denying the plaintiffs possession in 60 acres of land situated in various survey numbers in Gachi Bowli Village. It is stated that there are no sub-divided survey numbers as 25/2, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5 and 25/6 in any revenue records pertaining to Gachi Bowli Village and that the said numbers are sheer manipulations of the plaintiffs. While denying that late Ramakrishna Rao, husband of the first plaintiff obtained the suit lands including the pucca house surrounded by a compound wall on perpetual lease from the then H.E.H, the Nizam in the year 1931, it is contended that the suit is filed without the alleged perpetual lease deed and the plaintiffs were called upon to file the said original perpetual lease deed, if it was in existence, reserving its (fourth respondent) right to file additional written statement on perusal of the said alleged perpetual lease deed; that the revenue records from 1931 onwards till the date of the suit do not bear out any testimony to show that in the year 1931 or on any other date late Ramakrishna Rao, husband of the first plaintiff took the suit lands along with the pucca house on perpetual lease from H.E.H, the Nizam. While denying the allegations in para 2 of the plaint that late Ramakrishna Rao entered into partnership with three other partners, it is stated that late Ramakrishna Rao appears to have enlisted three other like-minded people for the purpose of making unauthorised, illegal gain and usurpation of the Government land and the conclusion of the partnership deed by late Ramakrishna Rao with three others otherwise is inconsequential. It is also stated that plaintiffs and the said three other partners have made an abortive attempt to mislead the revenue officials to get the suit land sub-divided on paper but not on site and also succeeded in getting the supplementary sethwar issued by the Collectorate but the top officials of the State, realising the error at a later state, never implemented the supplementary sethwar order; that in the circumstances, land bearing Survey No.25, Gachi Bowli is bearing its own original identity as Survey No.25 only; that the plaintiffs or any of the alleged three partners were ever in actual possession of the suit land admeasuring 60 acres bearing Survey No.25 (part); that the revenue records and survey settlement, bear out the suit lands, more particularly Survey No.25 admeasuring about 2,725 acres as Government Poramboku lands and classified as ‘Kancha Asthabal’ till 1975 and on 25.03.1975 this total extent of land bearing No.25 was delivered permanently to defendant No.1 in this case by the State Government under 6-Point Formula for establishing University and that Survey Nos.25 and 26 of Gachi Bowli Village of which the suit lands are part and parcel, were never owned by the H.E.H, the Nizam and late H.E.H, the Nizam had no right in the suit lands. It is further stated that even in the “Blue Book” compiled by the Government of India containing list of the private properties of the late H.E.H, the Nizam, Lists I and II do not show the suit property as included therein; that Gachi Bowli is one of 14 Kanchas listed in List III having a total area of 23,000 acres of land as being the Government property and not as private properties of H.E.H, the Nizam; that now this land was handed over permanently by the fourth defendant to Central University i.e., defendant No.1 on 25.03.1975 and it is presently the property of the Central University and the fourth defendant is no more the owner of the Gachi Bowli area (suit property) and that the pahanies for the three years i.e., 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1979-80 relied on by the plaintiffs only reveal that the plaintiffs have succeeded in getting the said pahanies manipulated for which it is learnt that the first defendant has already filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the same is pending disposal for correction of records as such these pahanies do not help the plaintiffs in any manner. The said written statement was amended by order dated 19.03.1996 in I.A.No.196 of 1996 stating that pending the suit proceedings, for providing site for construction of Ranga Reddy District Official Complex, the Government has resumed the land to an extent of 100 acres from the Central University of Hyderabad pursuant to the orders in Memo No.7364/Assignment III (3)/90, dated 13.08.1990 and out of the same, an extent of Acs.62.00 of land was taken possession by the Government under panchanama dated 13.08.1990 with clear demarcation of the area and the Government is in possession of the said property where construction of offices are coming up. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land S.Nos.25/2, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5 and 25/6 situated at Gachi Bowli village admeasuring 60 acres including house bearing No.1-67 surrounded by compound wall and also a well as a lessee of H.E.H, the Nizam from 1931 onwards through her husband as alleged in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession of the suit schedule land? 3. Whether the Central University Authorities attempted to encroach into the suit land and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land? 4. Whether the defendant No.2 attempted to dig a foundation for construction of a compound wall in the suit land on 08.11.1979? 5. Whether the suit land S.No.25 situated at Gachi Bowli was sub-divided into S.Nos.25/1 to 25/6 at any point of time? 6. Whether the S.No.25 is a Government Kancha land and whether the Nizam of Hyderabad was competent to lease it out to the husband of the plaintiff? 7. Whether the Government of A.P handed over the entire land S.No.25 to the defendants on 25.03.1975 for the establishment of Central University in Andhra Pradesh under 6 point formula as alleged in the written statement? 8. Whether the defendants constructed a compound wall over the area of 13 acres? 9. Whether the Government of A.P is a necessary party to the suit and whether the suit is banned for non-joinder of necessary parties? 10. Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action to file this suit? 11. Whether the suit valuation is correct and that the court fee is sufficient? 12. To what relief?” On the above issues, the parties went into trial. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, they examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.29, apart from marking Exs.X.1 and X.2; X-1 (a) and X- 2(a), which are equivalent to Exs.A.4 and A.5. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.17 were marked. The trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, on issues Nos.1 and 2 held that the plaintiffs failed to establish through the material evidence that the property belongs to the H.E.H, the Nizam and the perpetual lease granted in favour of late N. Ramakrishna Rao and therefore, they are not entitled to declaration of title so far as the vacant land is concerned and since the title is not proved the relief of recovery of possession also cannot be granted. In respect of the house property, the plaintiffs could able to establish their possession and enjoyment, but the Government could not establish its right over the said house property, and therefore, the issue can be left open to be determined in any subsequent proceedings, if any, initiated by the Government for recovery of possession and eviction of the tenant. On issue Nos.3 and 4, it was held that since the relief was altered to one for recovery of possession of the property, the said issues were unnecessary. On issue No.5 it was held that though a supplementary sethwar was issued, there is no factual division of the property and the proceedings were stayed and therefore, the said issue was answered against the plaintiffs. On issue No.6, it was held that from the list of properties of the Nizam coupled with the revenue records filed by the plaintiffs, it is quite clear that the suit land is not the private land of the H.E.H, the Nizam and it is a Government land and therefore, H.E.H., Nizam is not competent to lease out the property. On issue Nos.7 and 8, it was held that since the property was in possession of the Central University and it was surrounded by a compound wall, it clearly establishes the delivery of possession to the Central University by the Government and accordingly answered the issues against the plaintiffs. By observing so, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as far as declaration of title and recovery of possession of the vacant land and partly decreed it granting permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the house property by the plaintiffs, leaving it open to the Government for recovery of possession of the house or for eviction in appropriate proceedings, if any. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff Nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 17 filed A.S.No.2248 of 1998, whereas plaintiff No.9 filed A.S.No.897 of 1999. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants (plaintiffs 1 to 8 and 10 to 17) in A.S.No.2248 of 1998 and respondents 1 to 15 in A.S.No.897 of 1999, contends that the suit schedule land was shown as “Sarfekhas” land before the merger of “Sarfekhas” in “Diwani” under a treaty in the year 1953, as per the list of H.E.H, the Nizam and that the word “Sarfekhas” used in the Revenue Record indicates only the H.E.H, the Nizam and not the State Government, and therefore, the learned trial Judge misconstrued the word “Sarfekhas” based on Ex.A.29-supplementary sethwar, and also misconstrued Exs.A.4 and A.5 and observed that the said documents were brought into existence conveniently to suit the claim of the plaintiffs, which is contrary to the evidence on record. He further contended that the finding in respect of Ex.A.29-supplementary sethwar is based on presumptions and the same is contrary to the evidence on record and that the Nizam himself sold the land in Survey Nos.25 and 26 to HACA, which is evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2096 of 1979, but the same was not properly considered by the trial Court. On the other hand, Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff No.9) in A.S.No.897 of 1999 and respondent No.5 in A.S.No.2248 of 1998 contends that List III of the Blue Book contains statement showing 23 kanchas in different localities indicating the survey numbers, extent of lands, Taluk, District etc., in the sarfekhas and Serial No.4 deals with the land in Survey Nos.25 and 26 of Kancha Gachi Bowli; that in the year 1956 the Government acquired Acs.14.20 guntas of land and paid compensation to the H.E.H, the Nizam; that except the suit schedule property of Survey Nos.25 and 26 specified in List III of the “Blue Book”, the H.E.H, the Nizam sold 2374 acres of land to HACA; that the said lands, which were purchased by HACA from the H.E.H., the Nizam, were acquired by the Government; that on such acquisition, HACA filed W.P.No.2096 of 1979 and this Court by order dated 15.09.1980 (Ex.B.13) directed the Government to file a suit with regard to the title of the land, within three months from the date of disposal of that writ petition granting liberty to both the parties to seek appropriate directions in that suit, and further directed that the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer be deposited in any Nationalised Bank; that in pursuance of the said direction, the Government filed O.S.No.298 of 1984 (Ex.B.14) against HACA and the same was dismissed for default and not proceeded further, and therefore, the Government cannot claim its title to the said property and that though detailed written arguments were filed on behalf of plaintiff No.9, the same were not taken into consideration by the trial Court. He further contends that the Ministry of States, India (New Delhi) addressed a letter dated 30.11.1953 (Ex.A.3) to the H.E.H, the Nizam stating that his rights in regard to the pasture lands admeasuring 23,000 acres will be subject to the operation of and governed by the Hyderabad State Tenancy and Revenue Laws; that on the application of Ramakrishna Rao for assignment of land bearing Survey Nos.25 and 26 at Gachi Bowli, the Secretary of Private Estate of the H.E.H, the Nizam through Ex.A.4 dated 09.09.1961 informed Ramakrishna Rao that the Superintendent of Kanchas and the Assistant Superintendent will inspect the land on 15.09.1961 and directed him to be present at the time of conducting the survey of the land; that under Ex.A.5- letter dated 31.12.1971, the Secretary, Managing Committee of the Private Estate of H.E.H, the Nizam directed plaintiff No.1 to approach the competent revenue department in respect of the kancha lands in Survey Nos.25 and 26, which are found to be non-agricultural lands and communicate the result to him and that under Exs.A.6, A.7, A.8, A.10 and A.11, the names of the plaintiffs were recorded as they were in possession. He further contends that pending O.S.No.310 of 1984 filed by the plaintiffs, the trial Court by order dated 25.04.1980 in I.A.No.762 of 1979 recorded the undertaking of the defendant University that they have not entered upon the suit lands and have not made any constructions. In the present suit i.e., O.S.No.63 of 1993, the Government filed a counter stating that if at all the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the Government may prepare either for acquisition or requisition of the suit schedule properties or may prepare for any consequences, which clearly establishes that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property till they were dispossessed from it in the year 1994 and the Court below