The civil revision petition is filed as againot an order made in A.T.A.No.9 of 1996 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 13.4.1999.

2. Sri S. Agasthya Sarma, learned counsel representing revision petitioners had taken this court through the findings recorded by the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, in ATC.No.30 of 1988 and also the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, the appellate authority, in A.TANo.9 of 1996 and would maintain that having disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2, recording such findings confirming tenancy rights on the respondents cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also incidentally referred to the statutory presumption and relied on Section 6 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, and further would maintain that to reverse such presumption, no acceptable evidence as such had been placed before the Court and in the light of the same, the orders made by both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel placed before this Court additional grounds raised pointing out certain subsequent