( 1 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 90 of 1991, on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate judge, Srikakulam. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, against the respondents, in respect of the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac. 3-00 in Sy. No. 16/4 of derasam Village.

( 2 ) THE appellant pleaded that his grandfather, by name Kolagana Pydayya, was the owner of the land in Sy. No. 16/4, admeasuring Ac. 22-60 cents, and out of it, he gave Ac. 5-00 to one of his sons, narsimhulu. The appellant is one of the three sons of Narasimhulu, and in the family partition, he is said to have been allotted ac. 3-00 of land, in Sy. No. 16/4, and that his other brothers were allotted the remaining ac. 2-00 of land, in that survey number, and other properties held by Narasimhulu. He pleaded that the ownership of Pydayya was recognized, through important documents, such as fair adangal, prepared in the year 1953, and that the possession of the appellant over Ac. 3-00 of land, in that survey number, was recorded, year after year.

( 3 ) THE respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that the land in Sy. No. 16/4, was held by Sri Poosapati Venkata krishnamurthy Raju, as pattadar, and from him, the first respondent purchased an extent of Ac. 2-70 cents, through sale deed dated 28-5-1985, and another Ac. 0-50 cents, through sale deed dated 19-7-1991. Placing reliance upon these two sale deeds, and other documentary evidence, the respondents denied the title, as well as possession of the appellant.

( 4 ) THROUGH its judgment, dated 30-7-1996, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A. S. No. 88 of 1996, in the Court of district Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal was allowed on 13-12-2000. Hence, this second appeal.

( 5 ) SRI M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the documentary evidence, placed before the court, clinchingly established and proved the title of the appellant, that the trial court recorded a finding, as to the existence of title, and possession in favour of the appellant, and that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court in reversing it. He contends that the observation of the lower appellate Court that there did not exist any title deeds and that the fair adangal cannot constitute the source of title, is contrary to the law laid down by the supreme Court in Vatticherukuru Village panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama deekshithulu, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228 and the judgment of this Court in Secretary to government of India, Ministry of Defence v. Indira Devi and another, 1998 (5) ALD 387 = 1998 (5) ALT 32. He further contends that the lower appellate Court had given greater importance to a xerox copy of 10 (1) account adangal, than the certified copy of the fair adangal of the year 1953. Learned Counsel points out that even after disbelieving the evidence of dw-6, the key person behind the transactions in favour of the respondents, the lower appellate Court has chosen to unsettle the findings recorded by the trial Court.

( 6 ) SRI K. V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that mere entries in revenue records do not constitute the basis for declaration of title, and that a party, who approaches the Court for such a relief, must prove it, beyond doubt. He contends that except the entry in the fair adangal, the other record did not support the plea of the appellant, both as regards the title and possession, and that the lower appellate Court corrected the mistake, committed by the trial Court, in decreeing the suit. He further submits that even if the evidence of DW-6 is eschewed from consideration, the burden of the appellant to prove his title, does not stand discharged.

( 7 ) THE appellant filed the suit for the comprehensive relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, against the respondents. The claim of the appellant was based on inheritance, and family

Click Here to Read the rest of this document