The courts erred in failing to recognize the necessity of proper notice in ROR proceedings, and the burden of proof regarding limitation lay with the plaintiff, not the defendants.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, who are defendants in the suit, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2002 in A.S No.22 of 2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2001 in O.S No.62 of 1997 passed by the Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet.

2. The respondent No.1- plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 4 as per the order dated 30.10.2023 in I.A No.05 of 2023.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and to declare the ROR proceedings in File No.B/2029/91 as null and void and not binding on him. The plaintiff contended that he was the owner of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2-25 gts., in Sy.No.357/2 situated at Peddakodur Village, Chinnakodur Revenue Mandal of Medak District. Originally, a total extent of Acs.9-28 gts., in the suit schedule survey number was standing in the name of the plaintiff’s elder paternal uncle, by name, Reddy Ramaiah. In family partition between brothers, the suit schedule land fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father, by name, Narsa Reddy called as Narsaiah. After death of plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule land as sole legal heir of his father. The suit schedule land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till the second week of November, 1990. The defendants 1 and 2 were brothers and they were having land adjoining the suit schedule land in another survey number at North East corner. Due to some disputes over the boundary line between the plaintiff and defendants and passing of cattle, the defendants high handedly interfered and tried to evict the plaintiff from the suit land and another land in Sy.No.354. Finally in the rainy season of 1990, the defendants directly interfered with the possession of the plaintiff by obstructing operation of agricultural work. As such, the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction, which was numbered as O.S No.123 of 1990 and got ex-parte interim orders in I.A No.295 of 1990 and protected his possession. The defendants filed counter and written statement in the above suit denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, contending that their father purchased the suit schedule property from the plaintiff’s father in the year 1960. No valid document was filed by the defendants to show their possession in respect of the suit schedule land. The court vacated the ex- parte injunction order on 19.09.1990. The plaintiff gave instructions to his counsel to prefer an appeal over the said order. In the meanwhile, the defendants approached the extremists and got a direction that they would decide the matter. Due to apprehension, the plaintiff did not prefer the C.M.A. and not proceeded with the suit. As such, the suit was dismissed for default on 26.06.1993. The extremists neither decided the matter nor refused. Meanwhile, they went underground. The suit schedule land was kept fallow. The defendants kept quiet for two and half years after dismissal of the suit. Again in the month of April, 1996, they claimed themselves as owners of the suit schedule land and that they got passbooks. The plaintiff enquired the matter in MRO office and came to know that pending