THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU SECOND APPEAL NO.1344 OF 2017

JUDGMENT :

Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of 1^st Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder the appeal preferred by the defendant in O.S.NO.157 of 2003 was allowed, dismissing their cross objections, consequently dismissed their original suit, the plaintiffs in the above said O.S.No.157 of 2003 have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC and sought for setting aside the Judgment of the 1^st appellate Court and sought for a Decree of declaration of their title on the suit schedule property along with consequential perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with their possession.

2. The above said original suit has been filed by one Bansidhar Rao who is shown as appellant No.1 in the present appeal, however in view of his death, after the disposal of the original suit, his legal representatives were brought on record to contest the claim.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were shown in the original plaint.

4. As could be seen from the record, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.1-16½ gts., in Sy.No.393/A and Ac.10½ gts., of land in Sy.No.400/A. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.681 of 2004 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule and in view of the orders dated 22.12.2004 in the said interlocutory application, Sy.No.393/A has been amended as Sy.No.393/AA. The plaintiff while filing the said suit has claimed that he has purchased the above referred extents from the original owner by name Venkat Rao under an unregistered sale deed, dated 18.06.1975 for Rs.6,000/- and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff having approached Revenue Divisional Officer got the alleged sale deed validated and obtained rythu passbook in 1982.

5. The defendant is none other than the son of the above said Venkat Rao and it further appears that after the death of his father, the defendant approached MRO, Sirikonda for pattadar passbook and title deed. The plaintiff has filed an application under Section 5 of ROR Act for issue of pattadar passbook and regularization of the alienation of the suit schedule property. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirikonda refused to give Pattadar passbook in favour of the defendant, thereby he has filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad which was also rejected, thereby he preferred revision before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

6. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad allowed the revision filed by the defendant on the ground that the pattadar passbook cannot be issued on the ground of adverse possession and directed fresh enquiry and disposal. The plaintiff while filing the said suit has further claimed that MRO without considering his unregistered sale deed and without any enquiry, simply negatived the same and issued pattadar passbook and title deed to the defendant on

09.09.2003.

7. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the above referred O.S.No.157 of 2003 seeking declaration of his title and perpetual injunction. The record clearly shows that the plaintiff did not file any appeal or revision against the orders of Mandal Revenue Officer by which pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in favour of the defendant.

8. The defendant having appeared before the trial Court disputed the plaint averments and contended that there was no such sale in favour of the plaintiff, since his father died in the year 1975 the question of plaintiff purchasing the property from his father in 1997 under an unregistered sale deed, does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of title or perpetual injunction and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

9. The trial Court initially framed th