THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.298 of 2010 (Dated : 07-12-2010) Between: Smt.V.Lakshmamma Kapugadda Road, Shamshabad village Ranga Reddy District …Appellant A n d Kummari Yadaiah and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.298 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2008 passed in A.S.No.57 of 2005 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, at Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2004 passed in O.S.No.91 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land admeasuring Ac.4.24 guntas in Survey No.53/24. She claims that she got the property under a Will dated 25.9.1989 executed by her paternal uncle Eswaraiah. Basing on the Will Deed, she got her name mutated in the revenue records. She claims to have leased the land in favour of defendant No.1 during the years 1991-92 and 1993-94. Since the 1st defendant failed to vacate the land and disputed her title over the property, she filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. 3. The 1st defendant filed written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff. He pleaded that he purchased the property from the original assignee and subsequently, the sale came to be regularized as he comes within the category of landless poor. He also pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer questioning the cancellation of assignment of the land. The plaintiff filed the suit suppressing the adverse findings recorded against her by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 4. The 2nd defendant filed written statement supporting the case of the 1st defendant. The trial Court framed the following issues:- “ 1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land ? 2) Whether the suit land was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant by his father in the year 1974 through a private sale deed ? 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable ? 4) Whether the 1st defendant is tenant of plaintiff during 1991-94 ? 5) Whether the plaintiff is never in possession of suit land ? 6) Whether the orders of M.R.O (Farooqnagar), Shadnagar dt.20.11.1995 are liable to be set aside ? 7) Whether the 1st defendant is cultivating the suit land in exclusive possession since 1974 ? 8) Whether the suit land is reassigned to the 1st defendant and Government regularized the patta in favour of the 1st defendant ? 9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? 10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant physical possession of the suit land ? 11) To what relief ?” 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, she got examined four witnesses on her behalf and marked 11 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the 1st defendant, he got examined himself as Dw-1 besides examining two more witnesses as Dws.2 and 3. The trial Court, on considering the evidence on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove her title over the suit schedule property and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the suit, by judgment dated 27.9.2004. 6. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.57 of 2005 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2004 passed in O.S.No.91 of 2002. The lower appellate Court, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment dated 3.11.2008. Hence, this Second Appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-defendant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submits that testamentary disposition is permissible under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court i n Chenna Reddy v. D.Venkata Reddy[1]. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- defendant submits that the assignment in favour of Eswaraiah has been cancelled and the same has been assigned to the 1st respondent-defendant by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Thereupon, the appellant-plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said appeal ended in dismissal and therefore, the appellant-plaintiff cannot be permitted to contend that she has title over the suit schedule land. 10. The factual aspect of the appeal preferred by the appellant – plaintiff before the R.D.O ending in dismissal is not contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. When once the cancellation of assignment proceedings reached finality, the appellant-plaintiff cannot agitate her claim over the suit schedule property. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.07-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.298 of 2010 (Dated : 07-12-2010) [1] 2004(1) ALT 406