JUDGMENT :

Defendants in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff in the suit and respondent No.2 was defendant No.3 in the suit.

2. On 21.03.2014 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest in respect of Ac.0.69 cents of land in S.No.270/2? and

2. Whether findings of both Courts below are perverse on this aspect?

3. The facts leading to the present second appeal need be noticed now :

Ac.0.69 cents of land in Survey No.270/2 in Chinthalapatteda Village also called as Venkatarajuvaripeta Village, Gundrajukuppam Revenue Village of Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District is the property in dispute. Definite boundaries on all the four sides are recorded for this piece of land described in the plaint schedule. On two sides of this land a tank in Survey No.270/1 is shown. On two sides of the plaint schedule land of others are shown. The suit was filed as O.S.No.17 of 2000 by the sole plaintiff seeking for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs.

Claim of the plaintiff was that his father purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 01.07.1942. In addition to that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam also granted a patta on 09.07.1943. Since those times the property has been in possession and enjoyment of ancestors of the plaintiff and thereafter it has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

Defendant No.3 has no rights over the property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2/Government has also no rights over the property. However, under the influence of defendant No.3 the Government authorities were trying to grant a patta in favour of defendant No.3 over a part of the plaint schedule property. It is further stated that Government authorities were claiming the plaint schedule property as a poramboke land but such a claim is against the entries in the revenue records. To the south and east of the plaint schedule, there is a tank and that is in distinct survey number and that has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. At para No.VIII of the plaint, it is stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 being public officials a petition under Section 80(2) C.P.C. was filed dispensing with notice contemplated under Section 80(1) C.P.C.

Defendant No.3 did not choose to appear and contest and was set ex parte before the trial Court. On behalf of the Government, 2nd defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit that was filed without issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The entire pleaded case of the plaintiff is incorrect and false. At para No.12 of the written statement, it is stated that land in Survey No.270/2 was classified as Thangellagunta Tank. At para No.11 of the written statement, it is stated that land in Survey No.270/1 was classified as Thangellagunta Tank. Land in Survey No.270/2 is classified as patta land. Extent of the land in Survey No.270/2 is only Ac.0.44 cents and the patta stands in the name of Sri Annamalai Mudali, who is the father of the plaintiff. After the death of his father, plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book for the land in Survey No.270/2. The claim of the plaintiff for an additional extent of Ac.0.25 cents in the said Survey No.270/2 is illegal and contrary to law. Therefore, declaration and permanent injunction over such an extent of land cannot be granted. Written statement further refers to a fact that the land in Survey No.270/1, which was originally classified as tank, was subsequently converted into house sites and it went on referring to sub-divisions made in that portion of the land and how certain portions of t