JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, in A.S.No.15 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2006 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, in O.S.No.108 of 1997. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. By the judgment dated 14.08.2006, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Vemula Sulochana-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of possession of the land admeasuring Ac.2.25 guntas, dry, situated in Sy.No.392 of Rajura Village of Khanapur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’), inter alia contending that she is the owner and possessor of the suit land and that she succeeded the same from her deceased mother-Lalitha Bai and her mother died in the year 1996 leaving behind her daughter, the plaintiff, as the sole legal heir. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khanapur, to mutate the suit land in her favour after the death of her mother as successor. The defendant is the brother of her father i.e. junior paternal uncle and he was looking after the properties of her mother and cultivating the suit land on batai basis and he was giving share in the crop to her mother every year. Even after the demise of her mother, the defendant used to give paddy crop to her. When the plaintiff approached the Village Administrative Officer of Rajura Village for payment of land revenue and also for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed, he refused to issue the same, and as such, she approached the Mandal Revenue Officer and applied certified copies of pahanies in respect of the suit land and also to know the procedure to mutate the suit land in her name. At that point of time she noticed that the name of the defendant is reflecting in the pattedar column and cultivation column. The plaintiff would also submit that the defendant got mutated his name in revenue records with the collusion of the Village Administrative Officer by name Venkat Rao who is his close relative. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition on 02.09.1997 before the Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel the mutation in the name of the defendant and to affect the same in her name. As the Mandal Revenue Officer refused to cancel the name of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration and recovery of possession as well as rectification of the revenue entries.

3. The defendant in his written statement while denying the averments made by the plaintiff, submitted that the father of the plaintiff was his elder brother and that their joint family consists of three brothers and the suit land was the joint family property. As the plaintiff’s father late Basa Hanumantha Rao was the elder and kartha of joint family was looking after the entire agricultural operations, the lands were kept in his name and after his death, the properties were mutated in the name of his wife. The defendant would submit that as there are disputes arose between the parties regarding the suit land, with the intervention of the relatives and caste elders a panchayat was held in the Ellapi Sangham on 24.01.1993. In the said panchayat it was agreed by both the parties that the suit land has to be mutated in the name of the defendant and the husband of the plaintiff-Venkat Ramulu agreed and signed for the proposed mutation and in view of the re-arrangement between the parties as agreed, the suit land was mutated in the name of the defendant. He would further assert that the plaintiff is estopped by the agreement dated 24.01.1993, and thus, the suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff has no locus to file the suit.

4. The plaintiff, in support of her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and also P.Ws.2 to 4 including the Mandal Revenue Officer and relied upon Exs.A.1 to A.17. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and