THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL No.739 OF 2009 ORDER: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 09-01-2001, in A.S.No.66 of 1997 on the file of the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 22-06-1996, in A.S.No.59 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, S.Kota, wherein the suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction was decreed. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for appeals and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants. According to them, the suit land originally belonged to one Kameswaramma and her mother-in-law and the same was leased out to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, who have been cultivating tenants, and out of the plaint schedule land item No.1 i.e. Ac.1.00 was sold to the plaintiffs and one Chukka Musali Naidu under registered sale deed-Ex.A1, dated 13-07-1951, and the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land as owners thereof and the remaining land as tenants and while so Jogamma-mother-in-law of Kameswaramma entered into the agreement of sale in respect of the remaining land of item No.1 of the plaint schedule and executed agreement of sale-Ex.A2 and the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration. The plaintiffs further plead that before regular sale deed could be executed and registered, the said Kameswaramma also died leaving behind no legal heirs. The plaintiffs would claim that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land absolutely as owners thereof and purchased under the agreement of sale having paid the entire sale consideration and their possession is protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). They filed suit for injunction as the defendants started claiming that the schedule land got vested in them by virtue of escheat as the said Kameswaramma died without having any legal heirs. 4. The defendants filed a written statement pleading in one breathe that they are not aware of any agreement of sale by Kameswaramma in favour of the plaintiffs and also that they are not aware of any sale deed by the said Jogamma in favour of the plaintiffs and contended that the said documents are all forged. According to them as the said Kameswaramma died intestate leaving behind no legal heirs the plaint schedule land got vested with the Government by escheat. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? 2. To what relief? 5. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. The Assistant Mandal Revenue Officer was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant. 6. Learned District Munsif on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, having paid the entire sale consideration, and therefore they are entitled for permanent injunction to protect their possession and the appeal filed by the defendants in A.S.No.66 of 1997 was also dismissed by the learned District Judge confirming the finding of the trial Court holding that the operation of escheat in respect of the plaint schedule property after the death of the said Kameswaramma does not arise at all and the possession of the plaintiffs cannot be disturbed by the defendants. 7. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below and also the record would disclose that the plaintiffs have purchased part of the plaint schedule land under registered sale deed-Ex.A1 and subsequently they purchased remaining part of the schedule land under the agreement of sale-Ex.A2 and they have adduced necessary oral and documentary evidence to prove the said transactions contained in Exs.A1 and A2. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the question of fact upholding the truth and validity of the transactions contained in Exs.A1 and A2 and the said findings do not call for interference by this Court. 8. As rightly observed by the Courts below the defendants have indulged in a contradictory plea by contending on one hand that they were aware of the execution of the sale deed or agreement of sale by the said Kameswaramma and on the other hand that the said documents are forged. The evidence of D.W.1, who is none other than the Assistant Mandal Officer of Jami, cuts the root of the case of the defendants as she has admitted that the revenue records, more particularly the Adangals and the land revenue receipts show that the plaint schedule land is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. In view of the unimpeachable evidence adduced by the plaintiffs establishing the truth of the transactions contained under Exs.A1 and A2 and also the fact that they have paid the entire sale consideration and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land, they are certainly entitled to protect their possession by virtue of doctrine of part- performance enshrined in Section 53-A of the Act. It is not known on what basis the defendants have pressed the doctrine of escheat into service. It is not a case where the schedule property is no man’s land that can be claimed by the defendants under the doctrine of escheat. The schedule land is shown to have been duly purchased by the plaintiffs under Exs.A1 and A2 on payment of the entire sale consideration and that the plaintiffs have also been in possession and enjoyment of the same on their own which they bought under Exs.A1 and A2. When their possession is sought to be disturbed by the defendants, the plaintiffs are certainly entitled to seek protection of their possession by means of permanent injunction and their possession cannot be disturbed by the defendants, except by due process of law. 9. Admittedly, the defendants have not taken any steps to establish their title over the schedule land after recovery of possession thereof. When that is so, as the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land in their own right by virtue of their purchase under Exs.A1 and A2, having paid the entire sale consideration, they are entitled for protection of their possession under Section 53-A of the Act. The Courts below have therefore on proper appreciation of the evidence on record rightly decreed the suit for permanent injunction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. There are absolutely no merits in the Second Appeal. 10. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st August, 2009 Tsy