( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants against the confirming judgments dismissing the suit brought for declaration of title and eviction of the sole defendant-respondent from Survey Nos. 138 and 139 respectively measuring acs. 3-01 guntas and Acs. 2-26 guntas in Bagh Amberpet, Sarehekha Taluq musheerabad, Hyderabad. The suit was brought on the pleading of the plaintiffs being the heirs of one Ameeruddin who, according to them, was the pattedar of the land and that after his death on 27th July, 1968, the plaintiffs had been mutated in respect of the land and Kami Izafa has been issued in their favour in 1969. Ameeruddin had sold from Survey No. 138 on 21-12-1962 by a registered sale deed Ex. B-2 an extent of 9,867 sq. yards to the defendant, and his brother Md. Shamsuddin Khan had sold on 29-5-1961 by a registered sale deed marked as Ex. B-1 12,500 sq. yards from Survey no. 139. The suit was filed to avoid the sales on the contention that the sales were void being hit by Section 47 of Andhra Pradesh (Telanganaarea)Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (referred hereinafter as the Act ) and that ex. B-l sale deed was also void as Shamsuddin Khan had no conveyable title in the land, the pattedar being Ameeruddin. Further, the pleadings of the plaintiffs-appellants were that the respondent fraudulently got mutation sanctioned in his favour in respect of the lands in 1978 and dispossessed the plaintiff s tenants from the suit land and changed the record without notice to them.

( 2 ) THE suit was resisted by filing written statementstating that Ameeruddin was not the exclusive owner of the land and that the land had been inherited by both the brothers from the original owner, their father Bahadur Dil Jung and that they had partitioned the lands and sold the lands separately to the respondent. Defendant also otherwise contended to have perfected title in respect of the lands by adverse possession. During evidence, the defendant adopted a different stand of the land having been purchased by both the brothers through registered sale deed Ex. B-3 during their minority in 1325 fasli (corresponding to 1915 A. D. ). The appellants challenged such stand as being in variation of the pleading and further that Ex. B-3 sale deed was for acs. 41-00 and did not show the Ex. D-1 and Ex. B-2 lands to be included therein, the boundaries of the land to be different and the disputed lands never to have been localised in course of the suit.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court framed 7 issues and two additional issues as follows:1. Whether the Late Md. Ameeruddin Khan was the sole owner and pattadar of the suit lands? 2. Whether the sale deed executed by Shamshuddin in favour of the defendant is null and void and unenforceable? 3. Whether the mutation sanction in the name of the defendant in 1978 without the consent of the plaintiffs is invalid and unenforceable? 4. Whether the mutation stands granted in the name of the defendant is time-barred and without jurisdiction of revenue Court? 5. Whether the suit land is non-agricultural land alleged by the defendant and what is the effect of it on mutation? 6. Whether there has been division by metes and bounds of the suit lands to the extent of portion of lands purchased by the defendants? 7. To what relief?additional Issues:1. Whether the sale deed No. 3302 dated 21-12-1962 and 1681 dated 21-5-1962 pertaining to the suit lands are sham, bogus, null and void and unenforceable in law as that being alienated without permission under Sec. 47 of A. P. Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1950. 2. Whether the defendant inserted Survey Numbers in the site plan of the suit lands while it was not put in the site plan of the registered sale deeds and thus, deceived by misrepresentation the revenue authorities in order to get the mutation sanctioned for the suit lands.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Court substantially answered all the issues against the appellants except Issue No. 6 which was, whether the prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document