Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal, directed against the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court is, if the High Court committed any error of law in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondents for declaration that they were owners of the land in dispute and permanent injunctions restraining the defendant/ appellant and A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 12 from interfering in their possession.

2. The suit was founded on title derived through purchase from one K. Nagaiah who had himself purchased from K. Mailiah. It was claimed that respondents and their predecessors in interest had been in possession of the land in dispute as owners since last over seventy, years. They had been paying the land revenue and entering into transactions in respect of parts of the land from time to time. Suit was resisted apart from merits on limitation, non-joinder, deficient court-fee, territorial jurisdiction, validity of notice etc. None of them found favour with trial Court. In appeal the challenge appears to have been, confined, to merits only. Even in this Court no effort was made to assail the finding recorded on different issues except the one on title and ownership of the respondents.

3. Controversy centred round plots Nos. 65 and 66. It has been found by the two courts that these two plots were owned by one K. Raja Mallaiah who had transferred them in favour of Kalbarla Nagaiah who in turn sold it to respondents ancestors. Ownership of R. Raja Mallaiah was not disputed even in the written statement but according to appellant the land was acquired by the Nizam of Hyderabad under a Farman and in any case by Notification issued under S. 3 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act analogous to S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of which compensation was paid and possession was obtained. The Civil Judge accepted plaintiffs case and found that since the appellants admitted that K. Nagaiah was the original pattedar of land in dispute which today were surveys Nos. 65 and 66, it was for the appellant to establish that title of the respondents predecessor was extinguished. The Civil Judge held that there was no Notification under Land Acquisition Act in respect of plot No. 65. And in respect of plot No. 66 the appellant based his claim on Farman issued by the Nizam of Hyderabad but no copy could be filed to show that the plot was acquired. And, as regards its acquisition all that could be established was issuance .of notification under S. 3 of Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. But there was neither evidence of payment of compensation nor taking of possession. This finding is based, apart from other evidence, on statement of the Revenue Assistant in the Collectorate office produced on behalf of the appellant. Consequently the Civil Judge held that the title of the previous owner even in respect of survey No. 66 was not extinguished. In appeal the High Court found that according to copy of the notification the land notified for acquisition included plots Nos. 34-40 and 49; according to comparative table survey No. 65 corresponded to survey No. 39 but as it was not acquired the appellant could not claim that the right, title and interest of the owner in survey No. 65 was extinguished. As regards survey No. 66, the Court found that even though notification was issued in respect of this plot but there was no evidence to show that compensation was paid to original owners nor there was any material to prove that the Government ever took possession. It was, therefore, held that, due to failure of the Government in making of award and taking possession the title of the owner subsisted and appellant could not claim that the land became property of the Government.

4. During pendency of appeal in this Court an application was filed to accept additional evidence comprising of Farman of Nizam, revenue extracts and variou