IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of the amendment to the original notification under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and its impact on the plaintiff's rights to the suit property.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dtd. 9/9/2014 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, confirming the decree and judgment dtd. 5/8/2002 passed in O.S No.49 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 1991 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur (for short "the trial Court").

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi (for short "the first appellate Court") in A.S.No.1 of 2004.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed O.S No.49 of 1991 before the trial Court for grant of declaration declaring that the amendment made to the original notification No.351, dtd. 3/8/1952 vide G.O.Ms.No.726 (Revenue) dtd. 10/8/1967 published in A.P. Gazette, dtd. 31/8/1967 as invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their sub-ordinates not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

5. Originally the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff which was purchased by his forefather's under the registered sale deed dtd. 27/9/1880 and since then they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the plaintiff got divided their entire properties by way of partition decree in O.S No.64 of 1947 in which the subject property is kept joint. Further, as the Government tried to take over their property, the plaintiff and their family members preferred O.S No.15 of 1958 before the District Court, Chittoor for declaration of title and the same was decreed on merits. Apart from the same, the mandatory injunction was given to the Government for grant of permits to the plaintiffs and accordingly the defendants No.3 and 4 have been granting Permits. Subsequently, the defendants preferred an appeal vide A.S No.415 of 1959 before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.15 of 1958. Thereafter, on 24/4/1991 the 4th defendant accumulated some survey stones near the suit property in order to put Khiran stones inside with an ulterior motive of annexing the suit property with the reserve forest. In pursuance of the same, the Government miserably failed to take over Kalyana venkateswarapuram and Vidwat Sadasivapuram under the first Notification No.351, dtd. 3/8/1952 vide G.O.Ms.No.2210 Revenue dtd. 1/8/1952. Thereafter, the defendants issued an amendment to the aforementioned notification vide G.O.Ms.No.726 (Revenue) dtd. 10/8/1967 stating that the High Court while upholding the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissing the Government appeal observed that the suit property formed part of Karvetinagar Zamindari and after Narayanavanam had been auctioned and separately registered in Collector's office, that they became ultimately part and parcel of the estate Narayanavanam, as such, the two villages should be deemed to have been taken over along with parent estate Narayanavanam from 15/8/1950. In spite of said amendment to original notification which was never acted upon till now, the Government cannot and will not get over or by pass the permanent injunction granted in CMP No.3609 of 1953 in W.P.No.269 of 1953 by the High Court of composite Madras State which was carried out in the decree and judgment of the trial Court in O.S No.15 of 1958. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit.

6. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statements and denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.796 dtd. 10/8/1967 issued an amendment to the original notification issued under Sec. 1(5) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 thereby Kalyana venkateswarapuram was de