The plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and possession of the land, leading to the dismissal of their suit for alteration of revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

(LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.)

The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2024, passed by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar in A.S.No.287 of 2013, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, in O.S.No.1133 of 2001 was confirmed.

2. The appellant Nos.1 to 15 are plaintiff Nos.1 to 15 in the suit, since the appellant No.7 died, the appellant Nos.16 to 18 were added as legal representatives and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 15 filed a suit vide O.S.No.1133 of 2001 against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 seeking the relief of alteration of entries in the revenue records and mentioning the name of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as pattedars in respect of land in survey Nos.278/1 & 278/2 of Kuntlur village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally, the suit was filed by plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 against defendant Nos.1 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 5 expired, as such plaintiff Nos.7 to 12 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Nos.3 and 5 and plaintiff Nos.13 to 15 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.5 is brought on record as legal representative of deceased defendant No.1. Further, plaintiff No.7, who was brought on record as legal representative of plaintiff No.3 also expired. However, the legal representatives of plaintiff No.7 are already on record as plaintiff Nos.8 and 9.

3.1 In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are the sons of late P.Bal Krishna Reddy and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are sons of late P.Ram Reddy. The late P.Pulla Reddy, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy are real brothers and sons of one late Venkat Reddy and they succeeded to agricultural lands and houses left out by their father. It is averred that P.Pulla Reddy got separated from the joint family and thereafter, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy also got separated. However, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy jointly acquired properties in survey Nos.278/1 to 278/6 at Kuntlur village and Late P.Ram Reddy acted as karta and got mutated his name in the revenue record and the properties were purchased by both the brothers. In the year 1961, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krisha Reddy partitioned joint family properties of agricultural lands at Hayathnagar and Kuntlur and rice Mill at Hayathnagar and the oral partition was reduced into writing on 21.08.1961, as per which, the land in survey Nos.278/1 to 278/6 of Kuntlur village were allotted to P.Bal Krishna Reddy. Though, P.Bal Krishna Reddy due to family necessities sold lands in survey Nos.278/3 to 278/6 to Ramalingam under agreement of sale to an extent of Acs.11-14 gts and Acs.16-31 gts in survey Nos.278/1 and 278/2, the said Ramalingam filed a suit vide O.S.No.52 of 1962 before the District Munsif, Hyderabad against P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy.

3.2 In the said suit, the defendants therein filed written statement admitting the claim of Ramalingam regarding allotment of share to P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy. After the death of P.Ram Reddy in 1978, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 secretly without knowledge of P.Bal Krishna Reddy seems to have initiated proceedings for grant of succession for Sy.Nos.278/1 & 278/2 taking advantage of continuation of name of P.Ram Reddy knowingly that fell to the share of P.Bal Krishna Reddy. Though the same were not shared and MRO without giving notice to the occupants passed orders on 10.08.1988 granting succession in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Having come to know about the orders of MRO, the father of the plaintif