1. The unsuccessful defendants preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’ for brevity) assailing the decree and judgment dated 18.12.2014 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial passed in AS.No.30 of 2014 whereby the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the said appeal had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 28.04.2014 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial in OS.No.95 of 2005 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein against the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of the agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.3.03 gunats in Sy.No.110 more fully described in the schedule and plan annexed to the plaint.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants (‘the defendants’ for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs (‘the plaintiffs’ for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. In the memorandum of objections, the defendants had raised the following three questions stating that the said questions are substantial questions of law involved in this appeal.

1. Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, particularly when the appellants/defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land?

2. Whether the Courts below are justified in deliberately not considering the material evidence adduced by the appellants/defendants establishing their possession over the suit land?

3. Whether the courts below applied their minds properly in deciding the issues in controversy?

[reproduced verbatim]

3.1 By way of SAMP.No.309 of 2015, the defendants also raised further following four questions stating that they are also the substantial questions involved in this second appeal.

(i) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, particularly when the certificate under Section 38-E of A.P (TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act does not show the boundaries of the land admeasuring Ac.3.30 guntas out of Ac.12.13 guntas in S.No.110 of Yamapur village?

(ii) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, when the pahani Ex.B12 relied upon by respondents/plaintiffs does not contain the names of the plaintiffs?

(iii) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, particularly when the suit is barred by limitation?

(iv) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, particularly when they failed to produce the original certificate issued under Section 38-E of A.P (TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands act on which the respondents/plaintiffs claimed their possession over the suit land?

[reproduced verbatim]

4. The learned counsel for the defendants while submitting that the before mentioned substantial questions of law are involved in this second appeal had contended as follows:

“The Courts below are not justified in decreeing the suit when admittedly the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property and had perfected their title by their long possession and when the exhibit A1-certificate, which was said to have been issued under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (‘the Act’ for short), does not contain boundaries and that in the absence of mentioning of the boundaries in the said document, the plaintiffs could not establish that it relates to the land admeasuring Ac.3.30 guntas mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and that the Courts below are not justified in decreeing the suit when exhibit B-12 pahani relied upon by the plaintiffs does not contain the names of the plaintiffs and that the Courts below had failed to take note that the suit is barred by law of limitation and that the Courts below did not properly appreciate the facts and the evidence on record and had