Unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 in both the courts below are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit in the trial Court originally for permanent injunction, which relief was amended subsequently for declaration of title and possession. Originally the suit for permanent injunction was filed in respect of Ac.5.15 cents in S.No.264/4 of Bheemaganipalle village, Punganur Taluk, Chittoor District, which is the suit land. After the amendment, the declaration was sought in respect of Ac.1.90 cents out of the suit S.No. It is the plaintiffs’ case that originally Gururajamma who is mother of the plaintiffs 1,2 and 4 and grand-mother of the 3rd plaintiff perfected her title for the suit land by adverse possession and that during survey and settlement operations, Gururajamma was granted patta by the settlement authorities for the suit land and that Gururajamma died intestate in the year 1971 leaving the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit land without any manner of right whatsoever. The defendants on the other hand contended that they have right and title as well as possession in the extent of Ac.1.90 cents in the suit S.No. on northern side and that Jamindar of Punganur granted patta for Ac.3.27 cents in paimaish Nos.18 and 28 in favour of the first defendant in the year 1944 and in addition to it, the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.00 therein on kanagi tenure and perfected his right and title to the suit land by adverse possession and that there is a demarcating ridge for the land of Ac.1.90 cents in suit survey number. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs’ right and title for the suit property and granting permanent injunction. On appeal by the defendants 2 and 3, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 approached this Court with this second appeal.

At the time of admission of this second appeal, the then learned Judge of this Court found that substantial questions of law are raised in Ground Nos.2 to 6, 17 and 21 of the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. They are as follows :

“2: The Courts below committed a grave error in holding that the rough patta, Ex.A2, is a document of title and that the plaintiffs have established their title and that the defendants have no right to challenge the rough patta in a civil Court.

3. The Courts below committed a grave mistake in holding that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to question the correctness or otherwise of a patta granted by the Settlement Authorities under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act 1948, relying upon a judgement of this Hon’ble Court which is no longer good law in view of the later Supreme Court judgment rendered in State of Tamilnadu V. Ramalinga Samigal.

4. The Courts below failed to note that the Settlement Officer had already entertained an application U/Sec.56 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 as to who are the lawful ryots in respect of the suit schedule land and that the said proceeding is in between the parties to this suit and the same is pending adjudication by the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Chittoor in his S.R.No.20/56(1)/85(Ex.B6).

5. The Courts below failed to consider relevant documentary evidence filed on behalf of the Appellants viz., Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

6. The lower Appellate Court had not even referred to Ex.B5 and B6 and gave a go bye to the Commissioner’s report and the plan marked as Ex.C1 and C2.

17: The Lower Appellate Court failed to note that the question whether plaintiffs or defendants are entitled to patta for the schedule land is very much pending before the Settlement Officer and unless and until the competent authority, decides the question, it is premature to give a decree for title in ex-estate lands and the suit is not maintainable in law.

21: The Courts below committed a grave error in decreei