Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999 in AS.No.1 of 1998 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.05.1997 passed in 0.s.No.1132 of 1992 by the District Munsif, Huzurabad, and granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs respondents, restraining the appellant defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the entire suit schedule land, the defendant filed the Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in respect of an agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.17 guntas wet land in Survey No.501 situated at Saidapur Revenue Mandal, for the relief of perpetual injunction, contending that the plaint schedule land is the land belonging to their father, it is their ancestral property and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the father of the plaintiffs and his brothers sold Ac.1.00 of land, out of the plaint schedule land of Ac.2.17 guntas, in Sy.No.501, to him, under an unregistered sale deed dated 09.09.1960 and since the date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. Before the trial Court, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs, whereas D.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.16 were marked on behalf of the defendant.

5. Upon considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court, mainly basing on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971, showing that the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 is in possession of the defendant and basing on the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer that, on enquiry, he came to know that the defendant purchased the said land under an unregistered sale deed and since then he is continuing in possession of the land and also taking into consideration that Ex.B.1 and the certified copies of pahanis filed by the defendant showed that the defendant is in possession of Ac.1.00 of land, decreed the suit to the plaintiffs in respect of an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas and dismissed the suit for the remaining Ac.1.00 of the land.

6. As against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court, observing that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Ex.B.3 certificate dated 10.12.1992 validating Ex.B.16 unregistered sale deed, while the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was pending and also there was an interlocutory order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs passed in an application filed by them. It is also noticed by the 1st appellate Court that the plaintiffs sent Ex.A.11 objection petition dated 04.12.1991 and Ex.A.12 objection petition dated 11.11.1992, to the Mandal Revenue Officer, stating that the defendant obtained Ex.B.13 in a deceitful manner without notice to the plaintiffs. However, the fact remains that the plaintiffs, challenging the order of M.R.O., have filed an appeal before the R.D.O., but the same was dismissed.

7. The learned first appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that the pahanis filed by the plaintiffs show that the plaintiffs are in possession of plaint schedule land from the date of filing of suit and earlier to that, the lands were kept fallow without any cultivation as evident from the entries recorded in the pahanis. The learned first appellate Court specifically considered in its judgment, the important fact that though D.W.3, the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, who was subjected to thorough examination as to the genuineness of the documents basing on which he gave the deposition, admitted in his evidence that the relevant record is not available with him and that he cannot give even particulars with regard to the subject matter without v