On 19-9-1997 this Court made the following Order in the Second Appeal :-

"In view of the substantial question of law raised in ground Nos.10, 11 and 12, the Second Appeal is admitted."

On 19-9-1997 itself in C.M.P.No.13982 of 1997, interim stay was granted subject to condition of the appellant depositing costs within four weeks from today.

2. The substantial questions of law, on the strength of which the Second Appeal had been admitted, as specified above, are as hereunder:-

1. Whether the Courts below right in entertaining a suit for declaration of title and possession when, certificate is granted under the A.P.Inams Abolition (TA) Act, 1955, when title is granted by the competent authority under the Act, whether the suit is barred under the Act.

2. Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in decreeing the suit basing on revenue records such as Ex.A.16, Ex.A.21, Ex.A.22 and Ex.A.24. Whether the Courts erred in not following the settled principles of law as laid down by the highest Court of the land, that the revenue records maintained for the purpose of collecting land revenue and does not confirm any title as laid down in 1996 (6) Supreme 385.

3. Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in usrupting the jurisdiction of competent authority under Inam Abolition Act in decreeing the suit for declaration of title and possession to nullify the title granted under the provisions of A.P.Abolition of Inams (TA) Act, 1955.

3. Sri Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel representing appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and would maintain that the suit claiming the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession itself is not maintainable since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel would maintain that though common Judgment was delivered by the learned District Munsif, Alampur, in O.S.No.25/94 and O.S.No.62/94, since the nature of reliefs prayed for being different and the issues tried and decided being different, though one appeal alone had been preferred - A.S.No.18/96 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, as against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.25/94, the findings recorded in the other suit would not operate as res judicata and perfectly the present Second Appeal is maintainable as against the said Decree and Judgment made in A.S.No.18/96. The Counsel also incidentally made certain submissions relating to certain of the findings recorded in W.P.No.1322/99 and would maintain that the same had been suspended in W.A.M.P.No.2826/2004 in W.A.No.1538/2004 and in the light of the same and also in the light of the fact that the specific question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of a Civil Court had not been decided, it may be just and proper to make an order of remand.

4. On the contrary, Sri Prasad, the learned Counsel representing respondent would maintain that in the light of the nature of the common Judgment and the common findings recorded and in the light of the nature of the issues which had been decided in both the suits, preferring an appeal as against one of the Decrees alone cannot be maintained and when such First Appeal itself is not maintainable as against the common Judgment in the absence of an appeal being preferred as against the Decree made in the other suit in the said common Judgment, the present Second Appeal need not be heard on merits and the same to be dismissed on the said ground alone. The Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in PALA NARAYANA v. M.VEERA SOMAIAH and would maintain that in the light of the same, the other questions need not be decided. The Counsel also further had drawn the attention of this Court through the issues se