The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Survey Act, particularly Section 12 Sub-section 3, regarding the finality of boundaries fixed by the Survey Officer.

1. This is an appeal from a decree giving the plaintiff, the Zemindar of Pittapur, a declaration that the suit lands are his jeroyiti lands and not the inam lands of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant had inam lands in this village and the inam register Exhibit P, shows that his family had an extent of about 5 acres of land of which he had parted with 3 acres leaving him entitled to about 2 acres. The next thing that we know is that in 1891 he took jeroyiti lands from the Zemindar under two pattas numbered as 65 and 92 and he retained the lands under these pattas until 1898 when here linquished them under Exhibits B and B1 and they were forthwith applied for by the 2nd defendant under Exhibit C and C1 and were re-granted to him under Exhibit E. These Exhibits show that what was granted to the 1st defendant under patta No. 65 was kh. 5-5-0 or about 42 acres and under patta 92 kh. 1-19 or about 16 acres, i.e., 58 acres in all. It is very remarkable that immediately after this we find the 1st defendant under a document on which Mr. Prakasam has relied purporting to mortgage inam lands of 24 acres. As we have said the whole family inam of the 1st defendant was only 5 acres, of which he retained only 2 acres. How that swelled to 24 acres in 1891 is not explained : and this, far from helping the defendants case lends support to the plaintiffs case that the 1st defendant had entered on an ingenious scheme of transferring or getting the jeroyiti lands which he had taken from the Zemindar in that village, converted into inam lands and treating them as if they were held under his inam grant.

2. Then we come to what has been called the water rate government survey in 1895 when the Government directed a survey with the view of fixing what was the proper amount due for what is known as mamool wet. In that survey, the 1st defendants inams are Nos. 306 and 334 and we find that the result of that survey was that survey No. 306 increased in area from 1-25 to n-20 and old survey No. 334 increased from 70 cents to 29-48. For this increase no plausible explanation has been suggested and the only inference seems to be that this was the result of some machination on the part of the 1st defendant, as we have said, to convert part of the zemindari lands into his own inam lands, and that this was his object is also the inference arising from what happened later. He purported in 1898 under the documents which we have already mentioned to relinquish these lands to the Zemindar and, as part of the same arrangement, the 2nd defendant took them, but there is some evidence that the 1st defendant continued to cultivate the land. Be that as it may, whether the 1st defendant or the 2nd defendant cultivated them we find that all along they have been paying, under their pattahs 65 and 92, the cist reserved by these pattahs although under pattah No. 65 the result of the survey was to show that it included only 13-35 acres and although under pattah No. 92 only 2 acres and 20 cents are now traced. See Exhibit G. Part of the land which is mentioned in Exhibit G has not been traceable at all. Exhibit G is a pattah of the year 1910 and it would have been more satisfactory if we had the pattah for the year 1898 or earlier. We think that the inference arising is that there was an increase in the 1st defendants inam for which there is no satisfactory explanation at all and the inference is irresistible that it must :have been brought about by the 1st defendant taking advantage of the fact that in 1891 he became the tenant of the Zemindars jeroyiti lands in the village under his pattahs 65 and 92. Mr. Prakasam has referred us to Exhibit 15-C which is pattah No. 48 of 1914 to which he sought to trace some of the lands which are missing from other pattahs: but we are not satisfied that they have been traced. And here again it would be exceedingly important to have not the pattah of the year 1914 but the patta of 1898 or earlier.

3. On the whole we see no reason to d