JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in the first appeal vide A.S.No.17 of 2011 dated 10.03.2017 whereunder the first appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.7 of 2005, consequently, passed a decree declaring the respondent/plaintiff as owner and pattedar of the suit property and to get the property delivered from the defendant and also granting mesne profits, the defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar filed this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, and assailed the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

2. The respondent herein has filed a suit before the trial Court seeking declaration that he is owner and pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.19.27 gts., in Sy.No.44 and sought for recovery of possession along with mesne profits. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court by Judgment, dated 14.07.2009. Being not satisfied with the said finding, the defendant in the said suit i.e. the appellant herein has filed first appeal before the district Court vide A.S.No.17 of 2011, but the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the Judgment of the trial Court.

Therefore he has filed the present second appeal.

3. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law, namely:

1. Whether the civil suit as framed and filed is not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955?

2. Whether the civil Court is not having inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the relief to the plaintiff?

3. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated for not framing the issue related to adverse possession and rendering the judgments without comprehensively deciding the suit on all the issues involved in the lis?

4. Whether the civil suit is maintainable in view of the parallel proceedings being pursued before the Joint Collector under the provisions of the special enactment?

4. As could be seen from the pleadings and evidence of both the parties to the suit, it was specifically contended by the respondent plaintiff that his grandfather by name Srinivasa Chary who was head of the Brahmins in Samsthan of Raja Balachander of Balanagar Samsthan got the property by way of Inam and subsequently there was partition among the father of the plaintiff and his brothers vide a partition deed between the parties and that the present appellant occupied the property in the absence of respondent plaintiff during the year 2000. He has also claimed in the plaint that the appellant herein having influenced the revenue authority got his name entered in the records as if he was cultivating the land since 1989-90 and obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) against one Venkata Charyulu and Tirumala Charyulu and that the appellant herein has no right over the property, thereby, sought for declaration of his title and recovery of property along with mesne profits.

5. The appellant has contested the suit by specifically claiming that he has purchased the property from the father of the respondent in 1974 and he was in possession of the property since 1974. He has also claimed that he has obtained ORC from the revenue authorities after due enquiry. He has also referred the proceedings initiated before the revenue authorities and having claimed adverse possession on the suit property from 1974, prayed for dismissal of the suit. However, the trial Court allowed the claim of the respondent on the ground that the appellant herein who tried to trace his title through the father of the plaintiff could not produce sufficient proof to establish the alleged purchase of the property and that the appellant herein obtained ORC without proper enquiry, therefore, passed a decree in favour of the respondent. The appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed, confirming the findings of the trial Court.

6. As could be seen from the record i