This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01-11-1999 in A.S.No.19 of 1995, on the file of the V-Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31-03-1995 in O.S.No.33 of 1990, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Puttur, whereunder the said suit filed by the appellant herein for declaration and injunction in respect of the plaint schedule lands, was dismissed.

2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the respondents are heard. Perused the record.

3. The appellant herein filed the suit with the following averments:

The plaint schedule lands of Ac.8-16 cents in R.S.No.157, Ac.3-45 cents in R.S.No.158 and Ac.7-53 cents in R.S.No.159/1 are situate in Vengalrajukuppam village, which is part of Zamindari of Karvetinagar and part of Zamin was purchased by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam long back. The suit lands were bearing dry Paimash Nos.276 to 279 and 281 to 283 and they were held on Zamindari patta by the plaintiff's grandfather M.Venkatrama Raju. Subsequent to the death of Venkatrama Raju, the plaintiff's senior paternal uncle was paying the rent. The plaintiff's father Krishnam Raju and his brother Chengam Raju were members of the joint family. The suit lands were ryoti lands within the meaning of Section 3(15) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The entire Zamin of Karvetinagar, including the suit lands, was notified and taken over by the Government and got vested therein. Notwithstanding the same, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the aforesaid paimash numbers and their possession is protected under the proviso to Section 3(d) of the Estate Abolition Act. After abolition of the Estates, the lands were surveyed under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act and the suit lands were situate in R.S.Nos.157, 158 and 159. The plaintiff's father filed a petition under Section 11(a) of the Madras Estate Abolition Act for issue of ryotwari patta for the suit lands. The said petition bearing S.R.5/11(a)/66 was posted for hearing on 06-05-1966 before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor. Subsequently, the matter was not getting posted for hearing. The plaintiff's father died in the year 1966. No notice was served on the plaintiff's father regarding the date of hearing. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that several cases remained unattended after shifting of the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer from Chittoor to Nellore. Neither the plaintiff nor was his father responsible for the delay in disposal of the case by the settlement authorities. The plaintiff came to know that one M.Govindarajulu, S/o Chengam Raju also made an application for issue of patta and the same was granted for an extent of Ac.4-00 in S.No.158 and Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.159 and sub-division also took place as R.S.Nos.158/2 and 159/2. Thus, for part of the lands covered by Zamindari patta, a ryotwari patta was granted in favour of cousin of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the Tahasildar is taking steps to assign the suit lands in favour of certain persons who are opposed to him. The Government is not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff, who is a ryot, from the suit land, which is a ryoti land, pending the claim of the plaintiff for ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Madras Estate Abolition Act. It will be open to the Government to deal with the lands under Darkasth rules only if and when the claim of the plaintiff's father is ultimately rejected under Section 11(a). Hence, the suit for declaration of the right and title of the plaintiff as pattadar and absolute owner for the suit lands and for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. The defendants filed a written statement contending, in brief, as follows:

The plaintiff's gra