ORDER

Leave granted. Substitution allowed.

2. Though the dasti notice had been served on the L.R., he refused to accept as per the statement made in the affidavit filed in support of the dasti service. Accordingly, we have heard the counsel for the appellant.

3. The case of the respondent set up in the plaint was that originally the property belonged to the appellant Shri Pushpagiri Math. Subsequently, the property was granted in favour of one K. Narasingaiah, the great grand-father of the plaintiff as Bhatavarthi Inam by Sankaracharya who was Peetadhipathi of the math. He was in possession and enjoyment as a grantee. Subsequently, he acquired title by prescription. The trial Court decreed the suit in OS No. 66/68 dated September 30, 1974. On appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasharaopet in his judgment and decree dated December 29, 1979 in A.S. No. 218/78 held that Ex. A-1 To Ex. A-10 positively show that the suit land is a Bhatavarthi Inam land and was in possession of the ancestors of the respondent-plaintiff since 1950 under Ex. A-1. The land, therefore, is a Bhatavarthi Inam land as evidenced by Ex. A-1 to A-10 granted originally by Bhatavarthi in or around the year 190