IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mutation of Revenue records does not take or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.
(2) Any deed of relinquishment would require registration as per Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 08-02-2021, in A.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.9.2015, in O.S. No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.

2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are defendants 4 and 5, respondents 1 to 4 are plaintiffs and respondents 5 to 7 are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S. No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, with a prayer for partition of schedule property into seven equal shares by metes and bounds and for the allotment of four such shares to the plaintiffs, future profits and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, decreed the suit with costs against the defendants 1 to 3 by ordering partition of the schedule property into seven equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of three such shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and three such shares to the defendants 1 to 3 besides delivery of possession; the remaining one such share shall be divided equally among all the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 3; and the defendants 4 and 5 can work out their remedies in final decree petition to the extent of shares of defendants 1 to 3. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants 4 and 5 in the above said suit filed A.S.No.95 of 2015, whereas the plaintiffs filed cross-objections, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Eluru. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, FAC/VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, dismissed the appeal suit while considering the cross-objections, by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court with modification that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled equally one such share each in respect of the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 4 and 5 approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.157 of 2006, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that one Samayamanthula Sarvayya was a resident of Madisettivaripalem Village in Chintalapudi Mandal of West Godavari District. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are his children. After the demise of his first wife Satyavathi, he got married the 4th plaintiff. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 1st defendant are his children born through his first wife, while the 3rd plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are his children born through his second wife.

(b) It is further pleaded that the plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of S. Sarvayya, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 10-9-1957 and possession was also delivered to him. He died intestate on 03-7-1982 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 as his Class-I heirs. When one Adapa Suryanarayana and his brothers trespassed into the schedule land, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 1985 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits and the said suit was decreed on 13-02-1996. The appeal preferred by the defendants in A.S.No.45 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge’s Court, Eluru, was dismissed on 21-8-1998 and later, the 4th defendant preferred second appeal before the High Court in S.A.No.744 of 1998 and the same was also dismissed on 23.9.1998.

(c) It is further pleaded that thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 filed E.P.No.49 of 1996 and obtained delivery of possession of the property through Court on 27-10-1998. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment