This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 28-02-2004 passed in A.S.No. 19 of 2003 by the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor district, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge reversed the decree and judgment dated 26-08-2003 passed in OS.No. 154 of 1991 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the record.

3. The plaintiff is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as ‘plaintiff” and ‘defendants’.

4. The facts relevant for considering this second appeal may be stated as follows:

According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, they became divided about two decades ago and since then they have been living separately. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. The plaintiff had re-claimed the suit land by spending huge amount and made fit for cultivation and has been cultivating the same. The State Government considering the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, issued D.K.T. patta in A.M. No. 598/4/84 in favour of the plaintiff, which fact is not in dispute. The plaintiff has been paying the land revenue to the Government and he was also granted ryot passbook in his name. The defendants never raised any objection as to the exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land, which was assigned to the plaintiff. It is the version of the plaintiff that the defendants having become jealous of the improvements made by the plaintiff to the plaint schedule land asked him to permit them to draw water from one of the wells which is situated on the western side of the plaint schedule land, for which the plaintiff refused. Keeping the said fact in mind, the defendants started openly proclaiming in the village that they would forcibly occupy the possession of the plaint schedule land by dispossessing him and under the said circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.

5. The first defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3. Their contention is that after their father late Sri Narasimhappa, became old the plaintiff occupied the position of the manager of Hindu joint family consisting of himself and defendants, obtained “D” form patta on 31-08-1974 . But the said land infact belongs to the joint family and the patta was granted in his name because he is the kartha of the joint family and in fact the DKT patta was granted for the benefit of joint family members. Therefore, according to them, the plaint schedule land is a joint family property and the plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive rights in the plaint schedule property. According to the defendants, the plaint schedule land, was taken over by the Government on 05-02-1999 under the provisions of AP Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and it was included in Survey No.15 of Mangalam survey group. An enquiry under section 15 (1) of the Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act was held by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor. During the said enquiry, the Executive Officer, Temples, Punganur on behalf of Sree Someswara Swamy Temple and archakas of the said temple set-up the claims for grant of Ryotwari patta for the lands situated in the village Guttapalle. The suit property was one among several other lands of an extent of 884 acres. The plaintiff, defendants and their father raised objection for grant of Ryotwari patta for the suit lands either in the name of deity or in the name of archakas in S.No.162/15(1)/61 PGR. It is their case that their family has been in continuous and uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment since the time of their ancestors. However, they admitted that ultimately the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order S.R. 276 and 289/11(a)/64 PGN (press note) dated 31-01-1966 rejected the