The plaintiffs in OS No.17 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chittoor, are the appellants. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.1.78 cents of land in Survey No.122/2B of Madireddipalle Revenue Village, erstwhile Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District. The case of the appellants was that the land is held by themselves and their ancestors for a long period of about 100 years and that the respondents, who have Ac.1.04 cents in the immediate neighbourhood, are trying to interfere with their possession without any basis. It was also pleaded that the land in Survey No.122/2 comprising of Acs.2.82 cents was sub-divided into Survey No.122/2A with Ac.1.04 cents and Survey No.122/2B with Ac.1.78 cents, the suit schedule property.

2. The respondents opposed the suit by filing a written statement. According to them, the land was part of estate and after abolition of the estates, ryotwari settlement was made in their favour. It is also stated that in all the revenue records, their names were entered, so much so the pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued to them. The further plea of the respondents was that Jayavelu-the 5th appellant, one of the sons of the deceased 1st plaintiff, is working in the Revenue Department, and taking advantage of the same, he manipulated certain entries, but the fact remains that at no point of time, the appellants were the owners, much less possessors of the land.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment dated 1.9.1993. The appellants filed AS No.108 of 1993 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2007. Hence, this second appeal.

4. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit and appeal, only on the basis of certain entries in the revenue records. He contends that the entries by themselves do not confer any title and since the appellants have established their possession over the property, relief of declaration and injunction ought to have been granted. He submits that the so-called patta said to have been granted in favour of the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (for short 'the Act'), is untenable, and the respondents failed to prove the title or possession over the land. He further submits that in the course of survey of the land, in the context of sub-division, the respondents have clearly admitted the possession of the appellants over the suit schedule land.

5. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the land was part of estate and patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act, was granted in their favour. He contends that the pattadar passbook, marked as Ex.B2, issued in the recent past, demonstrates the title and possession of the respondents over the land. Learned Counsel further submits that there was absolutely no basis for the appellants to claim the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit land, when they have neither purchased it, nor have got it by succession. He contends that the plea, as to admission of the respondents, as regards possession of the appellants, over the suit schedule property, in the context of sub-division of the survey, is untenable, and that the evidence of PW3, an Official of Revenue Department, would clarify the same.

6. The appellants sought the relief of declaration of title on the basis of alleged continues possession, spread over several decades. The relief of perpetual injunction was also prayed for. The trial Court framed only two issues viz.,

(i) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title in respect of the suit land?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction?"

7. On behalf of the appellants, PWs.1 t