THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.1172 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 1.10.2009, in A.S.No.19 of 2006, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.10.2006, in O.S.No.214 of 1999, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, decreeing the suit for declaration and for possession of the suit schedule property. 3. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant herein. 4. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of the disputed property in an extent of 55 square yards of vacant site, which is in illegal occupation of the defendant, out of Acs.0.04 cents in R.S.No.626/2 of Koduru village. He obtained ownership certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koduru, on 27.8.1992 under Ex.A-2, after following due procedure under A.P. Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1976 (for brevity “the Homesteads Act”). The defendant contends that he purchased an extent of 212 square yards of land, which includes the disputed property in an extent of 55 square yards, in the year 1999 by virtue of the registered sale deed in document No.1381/99. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had occupied 55 square yards of land, which is part of the said sale deed. 5. Now the question is whether the said extent of 55 square yards of land belongs to plaintiff or the defendant. 6. The plaintiff mainly relied on Ex.A-2 certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koduru, under the Homesteads Act. A serious question had been raised before the Courts below as regards the proof of the document in Ex.A-2 filed and relied on by the plaintiff. It was the contention of the defendant that the said document ought to have been proved by examining the author of the document. The lower appellant Court relied on the judgment of this Court in M.CHANDRAIAH v. C.NARAYANA[1] wherein it was held that when a suit for declaration was filed it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the public document. 7. In the instant case, Ex.A-2 certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koduru, under the Homesteads Act is a public document. In order to prove the said document, the officer who issued the document need not be summoned. In a way, such a public document, which has been issued by a public office, is to be presumed as a valid document issued by the competent authority. Of course, the same is rebuttable. Obviously, no steps have been taken by the defendant to refute or disprove the said document. There are some other aspects that were brought by the defendant relating to R.C.C. proceedings, obviously, to show that the plaintiff was only a tenant to the original owner. Even this contention also is not helpful to the defendant, inasmuch as the defendant came into possession of the disputed land only in the year 1999, whereas the plaintiff obtained Ex.A-2 certificate under the Homesteads Act by the competent authority in the year 1992 itself. All the questions that were urged by either side are purely questions of law and the same were answered by the Courts below after placing reliance on oral and documentary evidence and also by following the decisions rendered by this Court. 8. All the questions involved are pure questions of fact and I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. 9. For the foregoing, there is no question of law, much less substantial, warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 01.04.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.1172 of 2009 01.04.2010 (Msr) [1] 2008 (4) ALD 695