( 1 ) WE have heard learned advocates for the parties. Three main contentions were canvassed before us by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, that the respondents predecessor-in-interest who was admittedly protected tenant of the lands had orally surrendered his tenancy rights years back in 1951 and that, therefore, there was no question of their asking for restoration of possession from the petitioner who had purchased these lands after surrender, from the original owner inamdar years back in 1954 and prior thereto the petitioner was in possession on yearly leases from the government. Secondly, the application under Section 32 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed after unreasonable delay and should have been dismissed on that ground. Thirdly, the land in question was inam land and, therefore, the provisions of Section 32 of the Act were not attracted.

( 2 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it must be noted that only documentary evidence was produced before the authorities below on the basis of which judgments were rendered against the petitioner by the lower appellate court as w