( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is from the Judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in A. S. No. 769 of 1978 allowing in part the appeal of the plaintiffs - protected tenants and granting declaration of their title in respect of the plaint schedule property and possession thereof with a further direction for enquiry into profits from the year 1969-70. The suit was laid by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property, recovery of possession, declaration of their right to irrigate the lands with water from me two sources named therein, a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the irrigation channels of the two sources of irrigation in respect of the suit lands, a mandatory injunction to restore the irrigation channel that was destroyed by the defendants and to restore to its original condition and for recovery of profits, both past and future.

( 2 ) IN the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiffs are brothers and protected tenants in respect of the plaint schedule property which formed part of a larger extent of Ac. 62-03 guntas and that defendant No. 1, who was the owner of the property agreed to sell the same to them and after he received the sale consideration, the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Tenancy Act") issued sale certificates under Section 38 (6) of the Tenancy Act dt. 31-9-1961 but in the month of March, 1968, defendants 1 to 3, with the help of the other defendants, forcibly took possession of their property and deprived them of their possession. Resisting the suit, the defendants-inamdars denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they were the protected tenants and asserted that they were not in possession of the property and that the certificate proceedings were vitiated by fraud. It was also pleaded by them that without the prior sanction of the government no sale certificate could be issued and, therefore, the sale certificates allegedly claimed to have been issued were invalid.

( 3 ) THE trial Court framed the relevant issues on the pleadings and after considering the evidence held that theplaintiffs were not entitled to possession of the suit lands, they had no title or possession and they could not establish the true source of irrigation mentioned in the plaint. Although no separate issue was framed concerning the validity of the sale certificates, Exs. A-9 and A-10 issued under Section 38 (6) of the Tenancy Act, the trial Court held that inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the protected tenants, no title had passed to them under the certificates. A further finding also was recorded that the certificates were invalid due to absence of prior sanction of the government as contemplated by the Act.

( 4 ) IN the appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, the question was confined to title and the claim regarding easementary rights, it was agreed by both sides, may be left out tobe decided either by the Revenue authorities or the civil Court afresh. Ex. A-8 is the certified copy of the joint application made by the plaintiffs and the first defendant and other purchasers before the Revenue divisional Officer for issue of a sale certificate under Section 38 of the Tenancy act. In that application, there was an admission by the first defendant about the sale of the suit land to the plaintiffs. This document was eschewed from consideration by the trial Court relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High court in Akshoy Kumar vs. Sukumar Dutta, wherein it was held that the written statement filed in a previous suit was not a public document and, therefore, a certified copy of the same was inadmissible in evidence without calling for the original. The learned single Judge has elaborately considered this aspect and after reviewing the entire case-law on the subject, inclu