JUDGMENT :

The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.38 of 1997 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool is the appellant, the respondent Nos.9 to 13 are the legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit. (1st respondent-Nese Ramana). The respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the defendant Nos.6 to 8 are the legal representatives of the deceased-2nd respondent.

2. The appellant and the respondent Nos.1, 9 to 13 herein after referred to as 1st defendant and plaintiffs as arrayed before the appellate Court and trial Court.

3. The plaintiff/1st respondent-Nese Ramana instituted the suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 5, seeking relief of declaration that they are alone got title, interest in the plaint schedule property, who is entitled to be in possession of the plaint schedule property, and for delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule land to him, and for mesne profits, which suit decreed by the trial Court, directing the defendants to vacate the land, and delivery vacant possession to the plaintiff No.1/1st respondent, within one month from the date of Judgment, dated 06.06.2005 or 15 days after standing crop if any in the land as on the date of Judgment is harvested, whichever is earlier, and giving opportunity to the 1st plaintiff/1st respondent to claim past and future mesne profits by way of separate applications. Then, the 1st defendant/appellant herein preferred AS No.63 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which was dismissed, vide Judgment, dated 09.03.2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree in OS No.38 of 1997 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dated 06.06.2005, and directing the defendants to vacate the land and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff within one month from the date of the Judgment in the appeal. Against the Judgment and Decree in AS No.63 of 2005, the 1st defendant presented the present appeal.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule land, which is situated in Gollaladoddi village, C.Belagal mandal, Kurnool District in S.No.63/3 to an extent of Ac.7.02 cents within the specific boundaries belongs to their ancestors, who are service Inam holders. The plaintiffs submit that the 1st plaintiff and his ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, but the 1st defendant obtained patta in the year 1962 issued by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar through the proceedings, dated 21.08.1962, but the 1st plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the land till 1975, and then the 1st defendant took possession of the land under the guise of said patta. Then, the 1st plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, who cancelled the patta granted in favour of the 1st defendant Temple, and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.Belagal to issue patta in favour of the 1st plaintiff by its Order, dated 29.05.1986. Against which, the 1st defendant Temple preferred an appear before the District Revenue Officer, Kurnool, which was dismissed on 28.11.1988 confirming the Orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, and then the 1st defendant Temple filed Writ Petition No.18626 of 1988, before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was also dismissed on 25.07.1996. The plaintiffs alleged that during pendency of the above proceedings, the 1st defendant filed OS No.805 of 1988 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kurnool alleging that one Kuruva Chinna Jammanna, who is the 2nd defendant therein was their tenant, and that he had delivered the possession of the said lands to the 1st defendant herein, and the plaintiff herein was trying to dispossess and sought for permanent injunction against him, which suit was decreed on 07.09.1993. The 1st plaintiff preferred an appeal AS No.41 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool, which was dismissed on 18.11.1996 holding that the 1st defendant Temple had no title to the suit