( 1 ) THE second defendant is the appellant herein. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal it was decreed. Thus this appeal by the second defendant against reversing appellate decree.

( 2 ) THE facts are as follows: the respondents laid the suit for declaration of their title to and possession of 16 guntas of land in Servey No. 37 and 1 acre 23 guntas of land in Survey No. 40 situated in Anantharam Village, Tandur taluk, Ranga Reddy district.

( 3 ) IT is their case that they are the successors of Pedds Sayanna One Ashanna had two sons by name Ellanna and Pedda sayanna. Plaintiffs are the heirs of Pedda sayyanna. Pedda Sayanna had no sons. He had a daughter by name Ellamma. She was married to one Chinna Sayanna ram anna, Chinna Sayanna became illatom, son-in-law to Pedda Sayanna. Chinna sayanna had two sons by name Papaiah and Ananthaiah. Plaintiff No. 3 is that ananthaiah. He died pending suit leaving plaintiff No. l his son, and plaintiff No. 2 his wife, as his successors. Initially the plaint schedule property formed part of survey No. 206. After survey, it was demarcated into Survey Nos. 36,37,38 and 40. They are the Neerati Inam lands. It is their case that it is the joint property of Ellanna and Pedda Sayanna and that therefore they are entitled to half share in the entire Survey No. 206 and that Survey no. 37 and Survey No. 40 are in their possession and enjoyment. While they were continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof, they were wrongfully dispossessed from the lands in the year 1965, thus necessitating them to file the suit for the relief referred to above.

( 4 ) IN this suit, the illatom son-in-law of Ellanna namely Neerati Narasappa is impleaded as first defendant and the appellant is impleaded as the second defendant. The first defendant remained ex parte. Pending suit he died and defendants 3 and 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives. However, they too remained ex parte. The appellant alone contested the suit. It is an admitted case that the property is a Neerati Inam land. It is the case of the appellant that the property exclusively belong to Yellanna, who has been rendering Neerati Inam service and it was granted in his name and it wes a personal grant. He has no sons he had only one daughter. The first defendant has come as Illatom son-in-law. After the demise of Yellanna, succession proceedings were taken out before the revenue authorities, where at the first defendant was recognised to be the successor to Yellanna in the proceedings ex. B-1 dated April 28, 1951. When an application was made to reopen the issue at the instance of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, it was dismissed under Ex. B-5 on March 13, 1953. It was recognised in that proceedings that the plaint schedule properties are Neerati Inam lands to which the 1st defendant is the success of Yellanna. Subsequent thereto, with the collusion of Patwari in the village revenue records the names of Pedda sayyanna, Chinna Sayanna and his successors were collusively brought on record. Therefore action was taken under the records of rights Regulation for the rectification thereof. The Joint Collector, hyderabad, in his proceedings under Ex. B-6 dated April 30, 1963 allowed the application and directed mutation of the Revenue records in the name of first defendant. Those proceedings in Exs. B-1, B-5 and B-6 were allowed to become final and therefore the suit is not maintainable. It is also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. After framing appropriate issues and adduction of evidence by both the parties, the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the genealogy under which they claim to be the successors of Pedda sayanna. . The plaint schedule properties were granted to Ellanna as Neerati Inam lands. The plaintiffs fails to prove that chinna Sayanna had no share and was not enjoying the property jointly with Ellanna. The order of the Tahsildar under Exs. B-1 and B-5 became final. The order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document