( 1 ) HEARD the counsel on record.

( 2 ) THE Second Appeal No. 261 of 1997 is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in o. S. No. 51 of 1984 on the file of Principal district Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A. S. No. 59 of 1993 on file of Principal subordinate Judge, Kakmada. As against respondent No. 1 the Second Appeal was dismissed for default.

( 3 ) THE Second Appeal No. 214 of 1998 is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in o. S. No. 54 of 1984 on the file of the Principal district Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A. S. No. 36 of 1992 on the file of Principal subordinate Judge, Kakinada.

( 4 ) THOUGH, the appellants, in these two appeals are different, the respondent-plaintiff being common and inasmuch as these matters had been disposed of by the Court below by a common Judgment, both these second Appeals are being disposed of by the common Judgment.

( 5 ) SRI T. M. K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the second Appeals had pointed out that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in these Second appeals is as hereunder: whether Ex. A-1 is admissible in evidence and be treated as substantive evidence?

( 6 ) THE learned counsel in all fairness submitted that in the light of the fact that the concurrent findings had been recorded by the Courts below, except this question no other question needs be considered, since all other aspects relate to the factual details.

( 7 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the respective original suits. The plaintiff is Boggavarapu Subba rao Choultry, in short, hereinafter referred to as "choultry".

( 8 ) THE plaintiff-Choultry filed O. S. No. 51 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif, kakinada praying for declaration of title in relation to the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same and the same was decreed in part with proportionate costs against the defendant by giving one month time for eviction. It was pleaded in the said plaint as hereunder:"the plaintiff Choultry owns extensive house-sites in Sarpavaram adjoining the main road. The said site was purchased on 25-/-1934 as per the registered Sale Deed. The said house- site being in "grama Khantham" was not assessed to any tax. The plan showing the entire house-site is filed and the house-site is marked as ABCD efghij in the plaint plan. There is a tiled room wherein one Pulla Sesharao was residing with the permission of the plaintiff as the said Sesharao is helping in the management of the Choultry properties. Except the said titled room the rest of the schedule site is a vacant site. Sri Kammarthi Tammarao is a tenant of the said property for raising vegetables on a yearly rent of Rs. 60/- payable on 15th January of every year. The defendant occupied an extent of 72 Sq. yards (60. 20 Sq. metres) on the northern side of the plaintiff house-site about 8 years ago and constructed a thatched house originally which was again converted into a tiled house in 1982. The occupation was without the consent of the plaintiff and therefore the defendant is atrespasser. The site under the occupation of the defendant is marked as VUYE in the plaint plan. It is now worth Rs. 5,400/- at Rs. 75/- pr sq. yard, which is the present market value. It fetches a rent of Rs. 1 00/- per month, if it is leased out. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 1-3-1982 to the defendant to which, the defendant got issued a reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit for declaration of title, for possession and for past and future profits. "

( 9 ) THE defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations and further pleaded as hereunder: the defendant does not admit that boggavarapu Subba Rao is the hereditary trustee. To the knowledge of the defendant the said Boggavarapu subba Rao was never recognized by the Endowments Department as hereditary Trustee. So the plaintiff has to