Appellant, Duggandla Rami Reddy, represented by his power of attorney holder Duggandla Mohan Reddy, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (trial court). He brought that suit for declaration of his title to the suit land and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants. The trial court, after contest, dismissed that suit by its judgment and decree dated 3rd October 2001. Aggrieved by the same, he filed this appeal.

2. The first defendant is Sri Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) and the second defendant is the Tirupati Municipality. The suit land is Acs.3-00 consisting of Ac.1-88 cents described in plaint ‘A’ schedule and Ac.1-12 cents described in plaint ‘B’ schedule with survey numbers in Tirupati Urban Mandal-Tirupati Town. To appreciate points in this first appeal, the respective cases of the parties and their contentions should be noted. Henceforth, for convenience, they are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. According to the plaintiff, his father late Peddamuni Reddy purchased the suit land for a sum of Rs.90/- under Ex.A.1 unregistered document described as saswata patta dated 02.04.1911 from its lawful owner Tallapaka Venkataseshacharyulu and obtained possession of the same on the very same day. The plaintiff’s version is that subsequently his father obtained Ex.A.2 ryotwari patta dated 30th December 1957 from the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, for the suit land under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short Act), and continued in possession and enjoyment of it. This Ex.A.2 is, according to plaintiff, preceded by Ex.X.10 decision dated 27th September 1957 of Tahsildar notifying the suit land as inam land under the Act. He also says that his father earlier and as well as himself perfected his title to the suit land even by prescription and his father died in 1959 thereupon he inherited the suit land.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that subsequently it turned out that the first defendant occupied plaint ‘A’ schedule land of Ac.1-88 cents on 4th December 1996 and the second defendant occupied plaint ‘B’ schedule land of Ac.1-12 cents without any manner of right and did not handover possession of the same to him despite repeated requests and a notice and therefore he had been constrained to bring the suit.

5. Before we set out the pleas of the defendants, we must mention that the trial court judgment would show that it rejected the plaintiff’s case more on the ground that he failed to establish that the suit land is the same land for which Ex.A.1 saswatha patta and Ex.A.2 ryotwari patta were issued. Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, the learned counsel appearing for TTD filed a chart showing the original extent of the land in Sy.No.9 of Tirupati and its sub-divisions and their extents and in which sub-division the suit land lies. The said chart is as follows:

S.No.9

Acs.50-50

S.No.9/1 S.No.9/2

Acs.24-23 Acs.29-27

9/1A 9/1B

Acs.2-55 Acs.21-68

9/1B/1A 9/1B/1B 9/1B/1C

Acs.2-57 Acs.3-56 Acs.15-34

Location on the Given at the time of Located on Eastern

West of Bye Pass formation of Bye side of Bye pass road

road Pass road to D1 TTD

9/1B/1C1 9/1B/1C2 9/1B/1C3

Ac.0-40 Acs.13-58 Ac.1-36

(Ac.13-64 u/sale (Ac.1-42 U/

u/deed dt.26-8-93 agreement dt.

Plaint “A” Sch 4-4-97 Plaint

“B” schedule

6. The above chart has been agreed to by Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Even in Ex.A.2/Ex.X.1 patta the suit land is shown in Sy.No.9/1B. Thus it is clear that defendants did not dispute the identity of survey numbers of the suit land though they raised a dispute regarding boundaries and actual identity and raised various other pleas to contend that the plaintiff’s claim is devoid of merits.

7. Now turning to the case of defendants, their first plea is that the entire extent in Sy.No.9/1B i.e. Acs.21-68 cents was acquired unde