On 10.11.1998, this Court made the following order:

"In view of the substantial questions of law framed in ground No.6 in the memorandum of grounds of the second appeal, this second appeal is admitted",

The following are the substantial questions of law which had been raised in the said ground No.6 of memorandum of second appeal :

(i) Whether a suit is not maintainable even against an impleaded defendant just because the suit was filed against the wrong defendant (dead person) for lack of knowledge ?

(ii) Whether the entries in Revenue Records coupled with the declaration filed under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act and the computation of the land to the holding is not sufficient to establish the factum of possession for the lands in dispute ?

(iii) Whether the Courts below were right in construing the possession of persons claiming through the plaintiff as that of strangers and is not accountable for claiming adverse possession ?

(iv) Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the declaration made under a State Enactment Le., A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act does not bind the defendant simply because he is not put on notice ?

2. The Counsel on record had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and made elaborate submissions relating to the maintainability of the suit as such since the same had been instituted originally as against a dead person. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that subsequent thereto voluntarily the son of the said dead person came on record, but he had not raised the specific ground relating to the maintainability of the suit and he had not even entered the witness box, but however the Courts below had negatived the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff and aggrieved by the same the present Second Appeal had been preferred. No doubt the same had been resisted on the ground that concurrent findings had been recorded by the Court of first instance as well as the appellate Court. The Counsel on record also relied upon certain decisions in this regard.

3. The substantial questions of law already had been referred to supra. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as "plaintiff' and "defendant" as shown in O.S. No.72/86 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy, Saroornagar.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit originally against the 1st defendant-Syed Nizamuddin for declaration that he is the owner and Pattedar of the suit schedule lands bearing Sy.Nos.484 and 486 of Kandukoor Village and Mandai and for a decree for correction of revenue records regarding the suit schedule lands bearing Sy.Nos.484 and 486 in village Kandukur, Ranga Reddy District by entering the name of the plaintiff in Column No. ll of the pahani for the years 1981 and also for subsequent pahanies by deleting the name of the defendants and for other appropriate reliefs.

5. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder :

The suit schedule property stands in the name of the defendant as a Pattedar and the plaintiff was in possession of the same as a tenant since 1949 to 1962 and he was in possession of the same as purchaser as the defendant sold the same under the agreement of sale dated 21.12.1960 for a consideration of Rs.15,000/and agreed to file the necessary application for mutation of the patta in the name of the plaintiff as he by that time had acquired the rights of Aasami Shakmi. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff who was the possessor and purchaser of the suit schedule lands under the agreement of sale executed by the defendant and who was paying land revenue to the Government had also perfected his title by prescription and declared the suit schedule lands as purchaser in his holding in the declaration filed by him in the year 1975 under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. The Verification Officer after due enquiry found that the suit schedule land