LAW FOR ALL : (A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Scope — Reappreciation of evidence — Appellate Court, while hearing a first appeal under S. 96 CPC, has power to reappreciate entire oral and documentary evidence and arrive at its own findings. Where trial court’s judgment is based on improper appreciation of evidence and erroneous application of law, interference by the appellate court is justified. (B) Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 101–103 — Burden of proof — Declaration of title and possession — Onus lies on plaintiff — In a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. Mere possession in the past or payment of land revenue does not confer ownership. Followed: Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31; Sajana Granites v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 270. (C) Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 — Ss. 3(g), 11 — Tank bed land — No Ryotwari patta can be granted — Land classified as “Cheruvu Padaka” (tank bed) or “Ava tank poramboke” is not ryoti land within the meaning of the Act. No person can claim Ryotwari patta over such land. Plaintiffs’ reliance on old pattas and tax receipts could not override the statutory prohibition. Held, that tank bed land vests in the Government and cannot be claimed as private property. (D) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 65 — Adverse possession and limitation for possession — Computation — Suit for declaration of title and possession must be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Plaintiffs alleged dispossession “after 29-6-1976” but produced no specific evidence of continued possession thereafter. Oral evidence revealed dispossession around 1974–76; suit filed on 17-6-1988 held barred by limitation. Held, vague pleadings about dispossession cannot extend limitation (E) Civil Law — Declaratory relief — Multiple plaintiffs claiming distinct parcels of land — When numerous plaintiffs claim independent parcels under separate alleged grants, each must independently prove title and possession. A composite suit for collective declaration of ownership is not maintainable unless a common right or cause of action is established. Plaintiffs’ joint claim failed for want of individual proof. (F) Land Law — Estates Abolition — Classification of land — Zeroyiti vs. Poramboke — Conversion of land classification by Settlement authorities cannot be interfered with by Civil Court unless shown to be without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory procedure. No such proof shown in this case; plaintiffs’ claim that zeroyiti lands were wrongly reclassified as poramboke rejected. (G) Result — Appeals allowed — Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 05.10.2001 in O.S. No. 288/1988 set aside — Suit dismissed

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Scope — Reappreciation of evidence — Appellate Court, while hearing a first appeal under S. 96 CPC, has power to reappreciate entire oral and documentary evidence and arrive at its own findings. Where trial court’s judgment is based on improper appreciation of evidence and erroneous application of law, interference by the appellate court is justified. (B) Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 101–103 — Burden of proof — Declaration of title and possession — Onus lies on plaintiff — In a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. Mere possession in the past or payment of land revenue does not confer ownership. Followed: Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31; Sajana Granites v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 270. (C) Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 — Ss. 3(g), 11 — Tank bed land — No Ryotwari patta can be granted — Land classified as “Cheruvu Padaka” (tank bed) or “Ava tank poramboke” is not ryoti land within the meaning of the Act. No person can claim Ryotwari patta over such land. Plaintiffs’ reliance on old pattas and tax receipts could not override the statutory prohibition. Held, that tank bed land vests in the Government and cannot be claimed as private property. (D) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 65 — Adverse possession and limitation for possession — Computation — Suit for declaration of title and possession must be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Plaintiffs alleged dispossession “after 29-6-1976” but produced no specific evidence of continued possession thereafter. Oral evidence revealed dispossession around 1974–76; suit filed on 17-6-1988 held barred by limitation. Held, vague pleadings about dispossession cannot extend limitation (E) Civil Law — Declaratory relief — Multiple plaintiffs claiming distinct parcels of land — When numerous plaintiffs claim independent parcels under separate alleged grants, each must independently prove title and possession. A composite suit for collective declaration of ownership is not maintainable unless a common right or cause of action is established. Plaintiffs’ joint claim failed for want of individual proof. (F) Land Law — Estates Abolition — Classification of land — Zeroyiti vs. Poramboke — Conversion of land classification by Settlement authorities cannot be interfered with by Civil Court unless shown to be without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory procedure. No such proof shown in this case; plaintiffs’ claim that zeroyiti lands were wrongly reclassified as poramboke rejected. (G) Result — Appeals allowed — Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 05.10.2001 in O.S. No. 288/1988 set aside — Suit dismissed — Each party to bear its own costs.

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Scope — Reappreciation of evidence —

Appellate Court, while hearing a first appeal under S. 96 CPC, has power to reappreciate entire oral and documentary evidence and arrive at its own findings. Where trial court’s judgment is based on improper appreciation of evidence and erroneous application of law, interference by the appellate court is justified.

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 101–103 — Burden of proof — Declaration of title and possession — Onus lies on plaintiff —

In a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. Mere possession in the past or payment of land revenue does not confer ownership.

Followed:

Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269;

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31;

Sajana Granites v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 270.

(C) Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 — Ss. 3(g), 11 — Tank bed land — No Ryotwari patta can be granted —

Land classified as “Cheruvu Padaka” (tank bed) or “Ava tank poramboke” is not ryoti land within the meaning of the Act. No person can claim Ryotwari patta over such land. Plaintiffs’ reliance on old pattas and tax receipts could not override the statutory prohibition.

Held, that tank bed land vests in the Government and cannot be claimed as private property.

(D) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 65 — Adverse possession and limitation for possession — Computation —

Suit for declaration of title and possession must be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Plaintiffs alleged dispossession “after 29-6-1976” but produced no specific evidence of continued possession thereafter. Oral evidence revealed dispossession around 1974–76; suit filed on 17-6-1988 held barred by limitation.

Held, vague pleadings about dispossession cannot extend limitation

(E) Civil Law — Declaratory relief — Multiple plaintiffs claiming distinct parcels of land —

When numerous plaintiffs claim independent parcels under separate alleged grants, each must independently prove title and possession. A composite suit for collective declaration of ownership is not maintainable unless a common right or cause of action is established. Plaintiffs’ joint claim failed for want of individual proof.

(F) Land Law — Estates Abolition — Classification of land — Zeroyiti vs. Poramboke —

Conversion of land classification by Settlement authorities cannot be interfered with by Civil Court unless shown to be without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory procedure. No such proof shown in this case; plaintiffs’ claim that zeroyiti lands were wrongly reclassified as poramboke rejected.

(G) Result —

Appeals allowed — Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 05.10.2001 in O.S. No. 288/1988 set aside — Suit dismissed — Each party to bear its own costs.

The State Of A.P.Dist.Collector,Eg ... vs Vinit Suryakantham 95 Ors on 27 October, 2025

APHC010338842001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

FIRST APPEAL NO: 2533/2001

Between:

President,atchampeta Sannakaru Vyavasaya Karmika ...APPELLANT(S)

Sangham&2 and Others

AND

Vinta Suryakantham 80 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA

2. SRIMAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K S MURTHY

2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

3. .

4. P DURGA PRASAD

5. M SRI ATCHYUT

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

FIRST APPEAL NO: 921/2002

Between:

The State Of A.p.dist.collector,eg Dist ...APPELLANT

AND

Vinit Suryakantham 95 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR

2. SRIMAN

The Court made the following:

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO.2533 OF 2001

AND

APPEAL SUIT NO.921 OF 2002

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These Appeals, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"], are filed by the Appellants challenging the decree and judgment, dated 05.10.2001 in O.S.No.288 of 1988 passed by learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada [hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"].

2. The defendants 2 to 4 in the said suit proceedings filed A.S.No.2533 of 2001 and the 1st defendant filed A.S.No.921 of 2002 against the same decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.288 of 1988 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

3. Since both the appeals are filed against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.288 of 1988 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, both the appeals are clubbed together and common judgment is being pronounced in both these appeals.

4. The appellants in A.S.No.2533 of 2001 are the defendants 2 to 4 and the appellant in A.S.No.921 of 2002 is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.288 of 1988. The respondents 1 to 57 in both the appeals are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.288 of 1988.

5. The respondents / plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property, for possession, profits and for costs of the suit.

The suit was originally filed by 22 plaintiffs. During pendency of the suit, some of the plaintiffs died and their legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 23 to 57.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

6. Both the parties in the Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

7. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.288 of 1988 are as under:

(i) In the erstwhile Pithapuram Estate, the schedule lands are situated in Thimmapuram village and they are zeroyiti lands.

These lands and several other neighbouring survey numbers are low lying marshy lands called AVA lands. These survey numbers are noted as ryoti lands in 1913 Record of Rights Register. The lands were granted on Zeroyiti lands by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of all the schedule lands till they were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants in June, 1976. The plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 80 years by 1976. The names of the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been entered in 1913 Record of Rights Register and Fair Land Registers.

(ii) In about the year 1960, there was survey and settlement conducted by the Government and in the said survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were granted conditional pattas for the said land. Due to some mistake that has crept in Government records subsequently, the said lands were noted as Ava tank poramboke without notice to plaintiffs or others and without any enquiry. The said land is not a poramboke or Government land or land intended for public purpose. The Government has no right to change the category of classification of the land from zeroyiti into poramboke to the detriment of owners without VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 notice to owners in a suomoto enquiry. The alleged change is not even in a primary enquiry as seen from records, but in an alleged appeal by one V.Kondaiah filed against the grant of conditional patta and requesting for an unconditional patta, the Assistant Settlement Officer seems to have granted a conditional patta to V.Kondaiah who filed an appeal against the same Settlement Officer requesting for removal of conditions and for grant of a permanent patta and the Settlement Officer seems to have directed change of category of the schedule land to poramboke even without notice to parties effected by the said change. These facets were revealed in the trial of O.S.No.149 of 1977 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kakinada, where the records were filed. But the taxes on the respective lands were being collected from plaintiffs on zeroyiti lands upto 1976. Hence plaintiffs and others were also not aware of such wrong classification.

(iii) In about 1976, some persons came to know of the fact that these lands were classified as poramboke lands and induced several landless poor people to form into societies or Sangham with a view to occupy the lands called Ava cheruvu. The defendants Sanghams 2 to 4 have trespassed into the lands in the plaintiffs possession after 9.6.1976 basing on the alleged proceedings of Taluk Office, Kakinada in Ref.B.5/1447/76 dated 29.6.1976. The plaintiffs could not resist dispossession whereas some people like Pabbineedi Venkatarao and others filed suits for injunction like O.S.No.1083/76 on the file of District Munsif, Kakinada and got injunction against Sanghams and could safeguard their possession. The principle is once a zeroyiti land is always a zeroyiti land and it cannot be transferred into Poramboke land in a suo moto enquiry and VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 even without notice to persons entitled to it and also in possession as of right. Such an act is illegal and liable to be quashed by the Civil Court, as such, transformation is done illegally under colour of authority which is not there.

(iv) The 1st plaintiff Vinti Suryakantham is the owner of Ac.7-92 cents in old S.No.103/1, new S.No.136/2 of Timmapuram village. The 1" Plaintiff got the same as per Registered Gift Deed dt.24.2.1955 from Chodisetti Manikyam W/o. Venkataraju and others and has been in enjoyment by paying taxes till dispossession. The 2nd plaintiff Kambala Chakram is the owner of Ac.3-09 cents in Old. S.No.103/, New S.No.136/2 of Timmapuram. The 3rd plaintiff Tummalapalli Sathiraju is the owner of Ac.1-17 cents in Old S.No.143/5, new S.No.176/5 and another Ac.0-81 cents in Old S.No.149/6, new S.No.182/7 in all total Ac.1-98 cents. His title and possession to the land is proved by several tax receipts filed and he obtained the said properties by way of gift deed dt.14.2.1958. He was enjoying the property till he is dispossessed. The 4th plaintiff Chodisetti Kameswara Rao and the 5th plaintiff Chodisetty Satyanarayana are the owners of Ac.5-18 cents in old S.No.131/5, 143/1, 143/4 and 143/6 and new S.Nos. 172/1, 176/1, 176/4 and 176/6 respectively. The 6th plaintiff Vakada Narayana Murty and the 7th plaintiff Vakada Dharamaraju are the owners of Ac.6-57 cents in old S.Nos.139/7, 143/3 and 137/3, new S.Nos.172/1, 176/3 and 170/5 respectively. These plaintiffs were in possession of the property since more than 50 years. The 8 th plaintiff Karri Venkataraju is the owner of Ac.1-78 cents in old S.No.91, new S.No.122 of Timmapuram. The 9th plaintiff Pedapudi Ramulu is the owner of Ac.1-42 cents in old S.No.138/2, new S.No.171/2 of Timmapuram. He has been VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 paying taxes on this land since times immemorial. The 10th plaintiff Pothula Lakshminarayana, the 11th plaintiff Pothula Prabhakara Rao and the 12th plaintiff Pothula Narasimha Rao are the owners of ac.3-57 cents in old S.no.136/2 and new S.No.169/3 and 135/3. This property was the ancestral property of these plaintiffs and they were enjoying the same from 1936 till they were dispossessed by paying taxes in their own name.

(v) The 13th plaintiff Jiyyanna Srimannarayana is the owner of Ac.0-70 cents in old S.No.137/2, new S.No.135/3 of Timmapuram. He purchased the said property as per registered sale deed dt.25.1.1959 from Chelikani Venkata Surya Rao and from then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes till dispossession. The 14th plaintiff is the son of Chodisetti Subba Rao and the 15th plaintiff Hanumanthu Booraiah are the owners of Ac.3-19 cents in Old S.No.145, 270/5, new S.Nos.178, 128/7 and 158/2 respectively. The 1"

item was obtained by 12th plaintiff by a registered sale deed dt.5.2.1923 from Savaram Yegulu and others and the Rajah of Pithapuram recognized their rights and granted yearly pattas. The 12th plaintiff settled ac.1-00 of land on his sister and mother of the 13th plaintiff on whose death here only son the 13th plaintiff became the owner of the said land. Since then, the 13 th plaintiff has been paying taxes to Government and enjoying the same since times immemorial. The 16th and 17th plaintiffs Muddana Rambabu and Atchutaramaiah are the owners of Ac.1-27 cents in S.No.172/7 and 170/1. The 18th plaintiff Pedapudi Seshagiri Rao is the owner of Ac.4-26 cents in old S.Nos.136, 138/2 and 139, new S.Nos.169/1, 171/2 and 171/3 respectively. The 18th plaintiff died during the pendency of this suit on 16.8.2000. The 19th plaintiff Gangumalla Somulu is the VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 owner of Ac.2-62 cents in old S.No.135, new S.No.168/4 of Timmapuram village. The 20th plaintiff Vakada Padmanabham is the owner of Ac.2-50 cents in old S.No.145, new S.No.178 of Timnapuram village. The 21st plaintiff Karri Kondalah is the owner of Ac.1-00 in old S.No.140/4 of Timmapurum village. The 22nd plaintiff Bandey Veerraju is the owner of Ac.2-16 cents in old S.No.97, new S.No.135/1, total Ac.2-97 cents of Timmapuram village. The defendants 2 to 4 have trespassed into the lands in the possession of plaintiffs after 29.06.1976 based on the alleged proceedings of Taluk office, dated 29.06.1976. Therefore, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for the reliefs of title and recovery of possession.

8. The defendant No.3 is set ex parte.

The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended as follows:

The suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs‟ claim to be interested in different properties. The schedule property is part of Ava Tank poramboke and is government land for which, the plaintiffs and anybodyelse cannot claim title or possession. Because the schedule properties are low- lying land, they are called Ava cheruvu lands. The plaint schedule land form part of Ava Tank. Ava Tank was in the erstwhile Pithapuram Estate Abolition Act, 1948 during 1950. The Ava Tank is securely bounded by bunds on South and North. There is Kakinada- Pithapuram road in the East and patta lands on the West. The total extent of this Ava Tank is Ac.240.12 cents. This tank receives excess water from Yeleru canal and is being stored. The Ava tank is having an ayacut of Ac.700.00. After the tank is taken over by the Government, it is declared as poramboke during survey and settlement. If really the plaintiffs are in possession of this tank at the time of taking over by the Government, they would have preferred claims before the Settlement Officer. He denied that the schedule lands are noted as Ryoti lands in the VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 Records of Rights Register of 1913. The claims of the plaintiffs were rejected by the Settlement Officer, Director of Settlements, Board of Revenue and the High Court. The civil Court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have no right to re-agitate their claims. They denied that the plaintiffs are paying taxes till 1976 as zeroyiti lands and that they are not aware of the alleged wrong classification. The schedule lands are registered as Ava tank poramboke to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The ineligible encroachers are evicted from the tank bed and the Collector instructed for taking acting for granting the lands on lease for raising 2nd crop only strictly adhering to the instructions issued by the Government. Accordingly, all the encroachers were evicted after due enquiry during Fasli 1381. Subsequently, during Fasli 1382 and Fasli 1383, same persons encroached again, who formed into two societies during Fasli 1384, relinquished their claims and about Ac.70-00 of tank bed lands were leased out to the three societies defendants 2 to 4. If really, the plaintiffs are dispossessed in 1976, there is no reason for not taking any action till 1988. For all the notices received during 1975-76, the Government issues replies and every time, no replies need be sent. The plaint schedule lands were declared as Government poramboke lands. The suit lands are not zeroyiti lands. They are Government poramboke lands. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended as follows:

The suit lands along with other lands having vested in the 1st defendant and after the abolition of the Pithapuram Estate, the 1st defendant alone has got title to the said lands. The 1st defendant having granted the lands on lease to the Sangham and this defendant thus having been in possession of the lands that were leased out to them, the plaintiffs cannot now question either the title of the 1st defendant or the lease that was granted by the 1st defendant to this Sangham and other Sanghams, as the VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 paramount title holder of the said lands. Some of the ryots might have been granted conditional pattas for the lands by the Survey and Settlement authorities. Later the mistake was rectified by the Director of Settlements, who cancelled these conditional pattas as the lands are Cheruvu Padaka lands and hence treated them as poramboke lands. There is no change in the category of classification of lands. The Director of Settlement held that it is a poramboke land, but not a ryoti land based on the estate records. They denied that these defendants 2 to 4 have trespassed into the lands in the possession of the plaintiffs after 29.6.1976 claiming that the Government granted them one-year lease for the said lands. In fact, this defendant Sangham was constituted in the year 1974, and this defendant was granted lease of certain lands and thereafter, there were some changes in the allotment of lands and ultimately, the said extent of Ac.60.18 cents was leased out to this Sangham in 1976. The plaintiffs have to prove their right, title and possession and enjoyment of the said lands and that the plaintiffs‟ suit is barred by time. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

10. The 4th defendant filed its written statement denying the plaint allegations and supported the same version as contended by the 2nd defendant and further contended as follows:

The entire land of Ava tank is poramboke land vested with the Government. In the Survey and Settlement, the concerned authorities are having every right to survey to ascertain the nature of the tenure of the land and the Government issued notices in general and the nature of the land changed by the Government by virtue of the decision given by the concerned Settlement authorities, the lands are notified according to their findings. Several poor people form into societies in Atchampeta as well as Timmapuram requesting the Government to lease out the lands, which are, belongs to them, which were in their possession, then lease was granted and they inducted into possession as lessees. They denied the dispossession as contended by the plaintiffs. It is a tank bed land and it is VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 tank bed poramboke vested with D-1. Therefore, there is no question of conversion of zeroyiti land into poramboke land. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

11. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title as prayed for?

(2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendants and to deliver vacant possession of the schedule lands as prayed for? (3) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to scrutinize the proceedings of the Settlement authorities?

(4) Whether the suit is bad for minjoinder of cause of action? (5) Whether the plaint schedule is a part of area tank poramboke as pleaded in the written statement filed by D-1?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs‟ suit is barred by time?

(7) To what relief?

The trial Court has framed the following additional issues:

(1) Whether the plaint schedule properties are ryoti lands in the Pithapuram estate and surveyed as ryoti lands in the records of rights register?

(2) Whether Ava tank of Timmapuram (V) was vested with the Government due to abolition of estate?

(3) Whether conditional patta issued by the Estate Holder only to show pyru crop will come within the purview of the amendment of Sec.20(a) and (b) of Estate Land Act, 1908?

12. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.172 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11, Exs.X.1 to X.10 and Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

13. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated 05.10.2001, against which the present appeals are preferred by the defendants in the suit questioning the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

14. Heard Sri Inapurapu Suryanarayana and Sri Sriman, learned counsel for the appellants / defendants 2 to 4, Sri D.Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General, for the appellant / 1st defendant and Sri M.Sri Atchyuth, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants 2 to 4 and learned Special Government Pleader for appellant / defendant No.1 would contend that the judgment and decree of the trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They would further contend that the Court below erred in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and delivery of vacant possession of the schedule land. They would further contend that the trial Court erred in holding that the suit land is not a part of the tank bed land and that it is ryoti land. They would further contend that the plaintiffs had neither possession nor title to the suit property, instead of dismissing the suit, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit. They would further contend that the plaint schedule land is not a zeroyiti land and the plaint schedule property is part of Ava tank poramboke and the same is Government land, in which the plaintiffs or anybodyelse cannot claim any right, title or possession and further contend that the learned trial Judge without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit and both the appeals may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.

16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the findings arrived by the learned trial Judge

17. Now the points for determination in the present appeals are:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are having valid right and title in the suit schedule property and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title in the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property?

4) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?

18. Point No.1:

Whether the plaintiffs are having valid right and title in the suit schedule property and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title in the suit schedule property?

The claim of the plaintiffs as per plaint averments is that 22 plaintiffs filed the present suit for seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule lands are zeroyiti lands and the lands were granted by way of zeroyiti pattas by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of all these schedule lands till they were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants in the month of June, 1976. Another plea taken by the plaintiffs is that in the year 1960, there was a survey and settlement conducted by the Government and in the said survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were granted conditional pattas to the suit schedule land.

19. The 1st defendant contended in the written statement that the suit for declaration of title as sought by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not having possession or title in the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant further pleaded that the plaint schedule property is a part VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 of Ava tank poramboke and the schedule property is a Government land, in which the plaintiffs or anybodyelse cannot claim any right, title or possession. The 1st defendant further contended that the Ava tank is having an extent of Ac.700 and after the tank is taken over by the Government, it is declared as a poramboke during the survey and settlement. The 1st defendant further pleaded that the plaint schedule lands are registered as Ava tank poramboke to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and ineligible encroachers are evicted from the tank bed and the Collector instructed for taking action for granting the lands on lease for raising the second crop only strictly adhering to the instructions issued by the Government. The 1st defendant further contended in the written statement itself that all the encroachers were evicted after due enquiry during fasali 1381 and subsequently during the fasali 1382 and fasali 1383, some persons encroached again , who formed into two societies during the fasali 1584, relinquished their claims and at about Ac.70.00 of tank bed land was leased out to three societies / defendants 2 to 4. The 1st defendant further contended that as per the policy of the Government, the tank bed lands were granted on one year lease basis to ryot cooli Sangham and small farmers Sangham in the year 1976. The 2nd and 4th defendants also supported the contention of the 1st defendant. They pleaded that the suit claim of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation.

20. The claim of the plaintiffs is strongly disputed by the defendants. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property.

In a case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others1, the Apex Court held as follows:

"In a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269 VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff‟s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited."

In a case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira & others2, the Apex Court held as follows:

"It is perfectly clear that in a suit of this description if the plaintiffs are to succeed they must do so on the strength of their own title."

In a case of Sajana Granites, Madras and another vs. Manduva Srinivasa Rao and others3, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held as follows:

"The Supreme Court in M.P. Athanastus case (supra), M.M. Catholices v. Polo Avira case (supra) and this Court in C. Audilakshmamma case (supra) held that plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the strength of his own title and that it is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and prove the possible defects in the plaintiffs title and so if the plaintiff fails to establish his title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintiff must be non suited. In this case since appellants are seeking declaration of their title to the suit property they have to establish their title; and cannot expect relief on the basis of the weakness of the case of respondents 1 and 2, or on the basis that the evidence adduced by respondents 1 and 2 does not establish their title to the suit property."

In a case of K. Venkatasubba Reddy vs. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) by L.Rs.4, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held as follows:

"A Division Bench of this Court also in Chakicherla Adilakshmamma v. Almakuru Rama Rao and Ors,- (3) AIR 1973 AP 149. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 526 (cited supra) held that "in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff is liable to be nonsuited, if he 1958 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 136 2001 SCC OnLine AP 666 1999 (1) APLJ 416 (HC) VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 fails to establish his own title irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not."

The law laid down by the Supreme Court and also by the Division Bench of this Court in the ejectment suits is also applicable to the suits for declaration of title. Thus, the plaintiff must succeed by establishing his own title, by adducing satisfactory evidence and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case.

21. In a case of Brahma Nand Puri vs. Neki Puri Since deceased represented by Mathra Puri and another5, the Apex Court held as follows:

"The plaintiff‟s suit being one for ejnectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming learned counsel is right in that submission".

In a case of Jagdish Narain vs. Nawab Sai Ahmed Khan6, the Privy Council held as follows:

"In a suit in ejectment the plaintiffs can succeed only on the strength of their own title, and there is no obligation upon the defendants to plead possible defects in the plaintiffs‟ title which might manifest themselves when the title is disclosed. It is sufficient that in the written statement the defendants deny the plaintiffs‟ title, and under this plea, they can avail themselves of any defect which such title discloses."

In a case of A. Ramloo and others vs. G. Sreeramachandra Murthy and others 7 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows:

In a ruling reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catheolicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, AIR 1954 SC 526, it has been held by their Lordships as under:

"That the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title. This can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his case or not. A mere destruction of the AIR 1965 SC 1506 1945 SCC OnLine PC 56 1999 SCC OnLine AP 80 VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 defendants title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere."

22. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule lands are zeroyiti lands and zeroyiti pattas were granted by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and in the year 1960, there was a survey and settlement conducted by the Government and in the said survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were granted conditional pattas to the suit land. The plaintiffs relied on Exs.A.81 and A.89. Ex.A.81 is the patta said to have been issued in the year 1958 in the name of Pedapudi Ramulu / 9th plaintiff for Ac.1.22 cents by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Ex.A.89 is in the name of Chodisetti Bangaraiah, which was said to have been issued in the year 1935. The said Chodisetti Bangaraiah or his children are not parties to the suit. Ex.A.37 stands in the name of plaintiff No.24. Ex.A.52 patta stands in the name of Nacharla Gangaraju. The said Nacharla Gangaraju is not plaintiff in the suit. Except plaintiff Nos.9 and 24, none of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title, filed the alleged pattas before the trial Court. The 9th plaintiff / P.W.8 filed his alleged patta said to have been issued in the year 1958 and its extent is Ac.1.22 cents. As per the evidence of 9th plaintiff / P.W.8, his family used to have Ac.1.40 cents only in suit schedule land and the suit land was given by the King to their parents. The 9th plaintiff also relied on Exs.A.53 to A.73 land revenue receipts. All the said land revenue receipts except Ex.A.70, are much prior to 15.05.1972. Ex.A.70 is dated 15.05.1972. The 9th plaintiff / P.W.8 admits in cross-examination that they were not in possession from 1976 and they voluntarily vacated the suit land and then the Government taken over the possession of the suit land and part of the schedule land was given by the Government to the Sangham people. His evidence clearly shows that they themselves voluntarily vacated the suit land without any protest and the Government has taken over the possession and later part of the said lands were given to the Sangham people. Except the 9th plaintiff and 24th plaintiff, VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 none of the plaintiffs filed their alleged pattas to prove their possession in the schedule property. Though the 9th plaintiff relied on the aforesaid patta, he admits the king gave the land to them and they voluntarily vacated the suit land and the Government taken over the possession and later part of the plaint schedule property was given to Sangham people.

23. Some of the plaintiffs filed land revenue receipts. All the said land revenue receipts are prior to 1975, except Exs.A.141 to A.143 land revenue receipts dated 16.02.1975. Exs.A.141 to A.143 relates to Hanumanthu Buraiah / 15th plaintiff. Ex.A.42 relates to Chodisetti Subba Rao. The said Chodisetti Subba Rao is not one of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also relied on Exs.A.162 to 166 land revenue receipts in the name of 19th plaintiff. It does not mean that the 19th plaintiff is in possession of his property till the year 1976. The latest receipt filed by the 19th plaintiff is Ex.A.166, dated 08.02.1975. Except the 9th plaintiff, 15th plaintiff and 19th plaintiff, none of the plaintiffs filed their land revenue receipts for the year 1975. None of the plaintiffs filed their land revenue receipts from the month of March, 1975 onwards. Moreover, payment of land revenue by the 9th plaintiff, 15th plaintiff and 19th plaintiff, does not mean that they were in possession of their lands till February, 1975. The law is well settled that the payment of land revenue does not confer any title in the plaint schedule property, that too in a suit filed for seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession over the schedule property.

24. The plaintiffs have not filed either 10-1 revenue Adangals or cultivation Adangals. As stated supra, except the 9th plaintiff, none of the plaintiffs filed their alleged pattas said to have been obtained by erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram. The 24th plaintiff filed the alleged patta. But the 24th plaintiff has not filed any suit and the 24th plaintiff was added as legal representative of deceased 7th plaintiff during pendency of the suit. The 24th plaintiff did not enter into the witness box.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

25. It is the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint itself that the suit schedule lands are zeroyiti lands. No document is filed by the plaintiffs to show that it is a zeroyiti land. Another contention taken by the plaintiffs is that all the schedule properties are zeroyiti lands and they were granted zeroyiti pattas by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property till they were forcibly evicted by the defendants in the month of June, 1976. The plaintiffs also specifically pleaded that in or about the year 1960, there was a survey and settlement conducted by the Government and in the said survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were granted conditional pattas for the said land and due to some mistake that was crept into the Government records, subsequently the said lands were noted as Ava tank poramboke without notice to the plaintiffs or others and without any enquiry. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the suit land is not a poramboke or Government land or the land intended for the public purpose. Admittedly, none of the plaintiffs questioned the said alleged change of classification of zeroyiti land to Ava tank poramboke before the appropriate authorities. The 1st defendant / Government is claiming that the suit schedule land is a Government poramboke land. Even according to the own case of the plaintiffs, in the survey and settlement operations in the year 1960, the schedule property is notified as Ava tank poramboke land. Even assume if the said statement of the plaintiffs in the plaint is correct, they have to challenge the said change of classification as Ava tank poramboke before appropriate authority. Even assume if the said statement of the plaintiffs in the plaint is correct, they have to challenge the said change of classification before the appropriate authority. But, they have not challenged the same from 1960 onwards before the appropriate authorities.

26. As stated supra, the plaintiffs approached the civil Court for seeking the relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the entire burden is casts upon the VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 plaintiffs to prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property. If they fail to prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property, they are not entitled the consequential relief of recovery of possession as sought in the plaint by the plaintiffs.

27. The 1st plaintiff pleaded that she is the owner of Ac.7.92 cents in old S.No.103/1, now S.No.136/2 of Timmapuram Village and she got the same under a registered gift deed dated 24.02.1955 from Chodisetti Manikyam and others and she has been in enjoyment by paying taxes till dispossession. But admittedly, no „D‟ patta of the said Manikyam is filed. P.W.1 admits in her evidence in cross-examination that Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of gift deed dated 24.02.1955 and except the registration extract of the gift deed, no document is filed to prove her possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. The plaintiffs also relied on Exs.A.4 to A.6 land revenue receipts. Ex.A.4 is dated 11.09.1975. It is not in the name of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.5 is dated 30.06.1973. It is in the name of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.6 land revenue receipt dated 16.05.1969. It is also not in the name of 1st plaintiff. Though the 1st plaintiff relied on Exs.A.4 to A6 land revenue receipts, except Ex.A.5, remaining two land revenue receipts are not in the name of 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff as P.W.1 admits that the Sangham people taken over the possession of the said lands in the year 1976. She further admits her land and the plots of the other plaintiffs are different or at different places, but not side by side i.e. continuous plots and she was dispossessed by third parties in the month of June, 1976 and her son Venkataramana informed her about the dispossession by Sangham people. The aforesaid admission clearly goes to show that she is not having any personal knowledge about the dispossession of the lands of the 1st plaintiff. She further admits the patta given in favour of her ancestors is not available with her.

28. The plaint averments shows that the 2nd plaintiff is the owner of Ac.3.09 cents in old S.No.103/1 corresponding new S.No.136/2 of VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 Timmapuram Village. No documents are filed by the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff / P.W.3 deposed that he is the 2nd plaintiff in the suit and the same is ancestral property and one Papa Rao is his father and he is the only son to his parents. There are no documents either in favour of him and his father or his grandfather in respect of item No.2 of the schedule properties. He relied on three tax receipts Exs.A.16 to A.18. Those are dated 23.06.1958, 10.03.1962 and 09.03.1969. He further admits that he does not know the contents in the plaint and P.W.2 taken over the documents and went to the Advocate‟s office and got drafted the plaint and filed the same into the Court. He pleaded ignorance in almost all the crucial aspects. In the case at hand, though he pleaded that he is the owner of Ac.3.09 cents, which is acquired by him by way of ancestral, no document is filed by the 2 nd plaintiff to show that it is his ancestral property.

29. It is the specific case of the 3rd plaintiff that he is the owner of Ac.1.17 cents in old S.No.143/5 corresponding new S.No.176/5 and his title and possession to the land is proved by filing tax receipts. But the 3rd plaintiff did not enter into the witness box. On behalf of the 3rd plaintiff, his son is examined as P.W.4. As per his evidence, one Chodisetti Nagaraju is maternal grandmother and his mother and grandmother executed a gift deed dated 14.02.1958 in favour of his father. He also relied on land revenue receipts much prior to 1975. He admits that the defendants occupied the land in the year 1976, but he did not give any report to the police.

30. The case of the 4th plaintiff is that the 4th and 5th plaintiffs are the owners of Ac.5.18 cents in Timmapuram Village. The 4th plaintiff is examined as P.W.5. The 5th plaintiff is not examined as a witness. P.W.5 deposed in his evidence that he is the 4th plaintiff and 5th plaintiff is his brother and the document of title for Ac.5.18 cents were not traced out either in favour of their father and their grandfather except the land revenue receipts. They relied on Exs.A.32 to A.35 land revenue receipts. Those are VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 much prior to more than 35 years prior to filing of the suit. He further admits that all the aforesaid land revenue receipts stands in the name of his paternal grandfather Atchaiah. He further admits that in or around 1976, the defendants Sangham people trespassed into the land and other ryots lands and they were evicted from Ava lands. He further admits that the Timmapuram Village lands are higher in level than the suit land. He further admits that he does not know exactly whether after taken over the possession by the Government, on the application submitted by ryoti Sanghams, the Government evicted them and handed over the land to the Sangham people as leasehold rights and delivered possession and since then, the Sangham people are cultivating their respective lands.

31. The 6th and 7th plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.6 is the 6th plaintiff in the suit. As per his evidence, the 7th plaintiff is his elder brother. As per his evidence, in the year 1976, Sangham people trespassed into the lands and forcibly taken away the crops in their lands. He further admits that Ex.A.37 is the patta given by the Pithapuram Zamindar dated 16.11.1937 in favour of his father. Exs.A.42 to A.46 are land revenue receipts. Ex.A.47 is the land revenue receipt dated 21.02.1978 in the name of his favour. As stated supra, even as per his own evidence, he was evicted in the year 1976 itself.

32. P.W.7 deposed in his evidence that he is the owner of Ac.1.78 cents in old S.No.91 corresponding new S.No.122 of Timmapuram Village. As per his evidence, the 8th plaintiff is his senior paternal uncle. He further admits that the land was purchased by his father and 8th plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 08.01.1950 and the original sale deed was lost in the fire accident and Ex.A.50 is the registration extract of the said sale deed. Admittedly, he did not choose to file the alleged patta said to have been issued either in the name of his father or his grandfather. He further admits that after dispossession, his father and 8th plaintiff got issued a notice to the District Collector and Sangham people and the said legal notice is Ex.A52 VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 dated 09.06.1977 and they cultivated the land and enjoyed the usufruct till 1976 and in the year 1976, some persons came suddenly and knocked them out and occupied Ac.1.80 cents of land. Admittedly, the 8th plaintiff did not choose to enter into the witness box. On behalf of the 8th plaintiff, his relative was examined as P.W.7.

33. The case of the 9th plaintiff is that he is the owner of Ac.1.42 cents in old S.No.138/2 connected with new S.No.171/2 of Timmapuram Village. The 9th plaintiff is examined as P.W.8. As per his evidence, their family possessed Ac.1.40 cents in the suit schedule land and the land was given by the King to their parents and the said land was enjoyed by their family and in the year 1976, three Sangham people evicted them from that land and also surrounding ryoti lands. He also relied on Exs.A.54 to A.73. But he failed to file the land revenue receipts stands in the name of P.W.8 from 1975 onwards. He relied on Ex.A.77 land revenue receipt dated 03.03.1980 and Ex.A.78 land revenue receipt dated 31.01.1983. Even as per his own case, he was dispossessed in the year 1976. Therefore, no credence will be given to the said land revenue receipts. He further admits that the suit land was not in his possession from 1976 and they voluntarily evicted the suit land and then the Government taken over the possession of the suit land, later given a part of the suit land to each Sangham people and the entire schedule land was given by the Government to the Sangham people. Therefore, his own evidence is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs.

34. As per the plaint averments, the 10th plaintiff, 11th plaintiff and 12th plaintiff possessed Ac.3.59 cents of Timmapuram Village. On their behalf, P.W.9 was alone examined. As per the evidence of P.W.9, he is the 11th plaintiff in the suit and 10th and 12th plaintiffs are his brothers. He further admits in the year 1976, one Surya Rao came and informed him that Sangham people came with sticks and material and taken away their possession by saying that they are not having any right in the said property. It clearly goes to show that he is not having any personal knowledge about VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 the dispossession of the plaintiffs 10 to 12 from out of the plaint schedule property.

35. The case of the 13th plaintiff is that he is the owner of Ac.0-70 cents of land in old S.No.137/2 connected with new S.No.135/3. As per his evidence, the said Ac.0-70 cents stands in the name of his father and his father purchased the same from Venkata Surya Rao and he lost the original sale deed. Ex.A.87 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 25.01.1959. As per the own case of the plaintiffs, it is a patta land. He further admits that himself and his father enjoyed the said Ac.0-70 cents of land till 1976.

36. The 14th plaintiff is examined as P.W.11. The 15th plaintiff is not examined as a witness before the trial Court. As per the evidence of P.W.11, their family enjoyed Ac.3.19 cents of land till 1976 and later the Sangham people forcibly evicted them claiming that the Government given the said land to them and in the same manner, they have also evicted not only himself and other ryots from their respective portions of the lands. He relied on Exs.A.104 to A.145 land revenue receipts. In cross-examination, he admits that he deposed before the Court in his chief examination based on the evidence on record, but not with the personal knowledge. He deposed before the trial Court in his chief examination based on evidence on record, but not the personal knowledge. He further admits that in the records filed into the Court, the suit land is classified as Cheruvu Padaka. He further admits that in Ex.A.94, it was noted as Cheruvu Padaka. He further admits that the Government gave a patta of the land to defendants 2 to 4 and he does not know whether each Sangham taken possession of their respective bit of land out of the suit land. He further admits that the Government given pattas to the Sangham people and thereby the Sangham people occupied the suit land.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

37. According to the plaint averments, the 16th and 17th plaintiffs are the owners of Ac.1.27 cents of Timmapuram Village. They relied on the evidence of P.W.12. P.W.12 is the 16th plaintiff in the suit. As per his evidence, their family got the land from their father and his father purchased the property of Ac.0-64 cents by his father under a sale deed, the original sale deed is not traced out and their vendors‟ vendor document is Ex.A.147. He further deposed after death of his father, himself and 17th plaintiff are cultivating the landed property and in the year 1976, some Sangham people came and evicted them and other ryots from the suit schedule land.

38. As per the plaint averments, the 18th plaintiff is the owner of Ac.4.26 cents. As per his evidence, he does not know whether there is any document for the property of two plots and they paid taxes to the Government for their lands and he kept the documentary proof in a thatched house, but the said documents are misplaced and they enjoyed the property till 1976, later the Sangham people trespassed into the land and taken over the possession. As per his evidence, he is not having any document to show that they are having right and title in the plaint schedule property and all the documents were misplaced.

39. As per the plaint averments, the 19th plaintiff is the owner of Ac.2.62 cents at Timmapuram Village. The 19th plaintiff is examined as P.W.14. He admits that there are no documents either in favour of himself or his father for the land, except the land revenue receipts. He admits that they are in possession till 1976.

40. As per the plaint averments, the 20th plaintiff is the owner of Ac.2.50 cents. As per his evidence, the document and land revenue receipts belongs to them was lost, since their house was collapsed about 30 years back and he has not obtained any copies of the documents from the revenue authorities to establish his right and title in the schedule property. As per the plaint averments, the 21st plaintiff is the owner of Ac.1.00. The VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 21st plaintiff is not examined before the trial Court. His son is examined as P.W.16. As per his evidence, he does not know what is the extent of land and he does not know the exact place of land. He admits the Sangham people occupied the land in the year 1976. He further admits that no record is available with him for his Ac.1.00 land as claimed.

41. As per the plaint averments, the 22nd plaintiff is the owner of Ac.2.16 cents. As per the evidence of 22nd plaintiff / P.W.17, except the two land revenue receipts, the other land revenue receipts and title documents are lost by him and they were not traced.

42. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses failed to establish that all the plaintiffs are having right and title in the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, some of the plaintiffs relied on the land revenue receipts. The present suit is filed for seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the burden is heavily casts on the plaintiffs to prove their right and title in the plaint schedule property, but they are not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case set up by the defendants. Except the 9th plaintiff, none of the plaintiffs filed their alleged pattas said to have been given by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram. Though the 9th plaintiff relied on the alleged patta, he himself admits that he voluntarily vacated his property and the Government taken over the property and later pattas were given to the Sangham people / defendants 2 to 4. His own evidence is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs.

43. As seen from the judgment of the learned trial Judge in its judgment, the trial Court has not even discussed the evidence of all the witnesses and not even discussed the material admissions in the cross- examination of the depositions of the witnesses. Admittedly, the 3rd plaintiff, 5th plaintiff, 7th plaintiff, 10th plaintiff, 12th plaintiff, 15th plaintiff, 17th plaintiff and 22nd plaintiff not even enter into the witness box and no pattas alleged VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 to have been issued are filed except the 9th plaintiff. Though the 6th plaintiff relied on the patta said to have been issued in the name of his father, the same is not proved that the 6th plaintiff is having right in the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint itself that they were dispossessed in the year 1976. As stated supra, payment of land revenue does not confer rights in the plaint schedule property. Except some of the plaintiffs, the remaining plaintiffs have not filed land revenue receipts to show that they paid land revenue to the Government. Though some of the plaintiffs relied on land revenue receipts, those are much prior to March, 1975. The suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiffs is based on the title. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they are having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property. But the evidence placed by the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are having right and title in the plaint schedule property.

44. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that the Ava lands situated in Timmapuram Village i.e. the plaint schedule lands are zeroyiti lands. Even in the plaint itself, it was recited that due to mistake crept into the Government records, subsequently the classifications of lands were noted as Ava tank poramboke without notice to the plaintiffs or others and without any enquiry. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not challenged the said change of classification of the lands from 1960 onwards before the appropriate authority. As per the own document filed by the plaintiffs i.e. Ex.A.11 ROR Register 1913, the lands in S.No.135/1 to 149/8 of Timmapuram Village are Cheruvu Padaka lands, but not the zeroyiti lands. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that the defendants have failed to discharge their burden of proof. In view of the settled legal position, as stated supra, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs. They have to prove their title, but not by the defendants. The own admissions of the plaintiffs‟ witnesses itself are not supporting the claim of the plaintiffs.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

45. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance on L.Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh8.

The facts in the aforesaid case law relates to writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the plaintiffs approached the civil Court for seeking the relief of declaration of title. The 22 plaintiffs filed the single suit for seeking the relief of declaration of title. As stated supra, two plaintiffs alone filed their alleged pattas which are relates to more than 50 years ago prior to institution of the suit. Except the said two plaintiffs, the other plaintiffs have not filed their pattas. Even though the said two plaintiffs filed their pattas, their own evidence itself is not supporting the claim of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to file 10-1 account and cultivation account before the trial Court.

46. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance on State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector v. Kothacheruvu Plantations and Industries Private Limited and others 9 , wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"204. Such delivery of possession pending suit would therefore be only subject to the result in the suit/appeal. Even alienations pending suit are subject to result of the suit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, if the plaintiff/appellant is held entitled to the reliefs of declaration claimed by it, then in exercise of power of this Court under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, this Court is entitled to grant relief of delivery of possession also to the appellant, even if it was not prayed for in the suit since on the date of the suit it is in possession of the property and the defendants got into possession after the present suit was filed."

The facts in the aforesaid case law are, pending suit proceedings, the suit property was delivered to others. In the case at hand, even as per the own case of the plaintiffs, in the year 1976 itself, they were dispossessed 2022 (2) ALD 234 2014 (4) ALT 380 VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 from out of the plaint schedule property. The present suit is filed on 17.06.1988.

47. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents contended that the issues consisting declaration of title and recovery of possession have already been adjudicated by the trial Court apart from this Court in a judgment in between State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ramajan and others 10. The facts in the aforesaid case law are the suit for declaration of title and possession and mesne profits was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in the year 1977 vide O.S.No.149 of 1977, but not in the year 1988 and the trial Court decreed the said suit for all reliefs, but the first appellate Court negatived the relief of declaration of title and possession was restored by holding that the plaintiffs in the said suit are forcibly dispossessed by the 2nd defendant after March, 1976. The 1st defendant filed second appeal and the plaintiffs therein filed a cross appeal and the second appeal has been dismissed and cross appeal was allowed. Whereas, the facts in the present case, even as per the own pleadings pleaded by the plaintiffs, they were dispossessed after 29.06.1976 and they filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in the month of June, 1988. The plaintiffs in the present suit and plaintiffs in that suit are different. The plaintiffs herein are not the parties to the said suit. The present suit is filed for relief of declaration of title. The suit for declaration of title is a right in personam not a right in rem.

48. None of the plaintiffs herein stated that they were forcibly evicted by the defendants in the month of June, 1976. Simply, they pleaded that they were evicted in the month of June, 1976. P.W.8 / 9th plaintiff deposed in his evidence that they voluntarily vacated the suit land and the Government taken over the possession of the suit land and later 1991 (1) L.S. 257 VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 Government given up part of the suit land to the Sangham people. P.W.1 simply deposed that he was dispossessed in the month of June, 1976. The aforesaid suit O.S.No.149 of 1977 was filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 5 in the said suit for seeking the relief of declaration of title in S.No.90/1, 93/1, 2, 94, 95/3 in a total extent of Ac.14.63 cents. Whereas in the present case, the survey numbers in the present case are different and the property is situated at same village. As noticed supra, the 22 plaintiffs filed a single suit and they are claiming title in different survey numbers. Therefore, it is the duty of the each plaintiff to prove his title and possession independently as pleaded by the plaintiffs.

49. The 3rd plaintiff, 5th plaintiff, 7th plaintiff, 10th plaintiff, 12th plaintiff, 15th plaintiff, 17th plaintiff and 22nd plaintiff are not even enter into the witness box. None of the plaintiffs except the 6th plaintiff and 9th plaintiff filed the alleged „D‟ pattas said to have been obtained from erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram. The plaintiffs failed to file revenue Adangals, cultivation account before the trial Court. Therefore, the finding given in the said suit vide O.S.No.149 of 1977 are not yet binding in the present suit. In the present case, the Advocate-commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and he visited the suit schedule property and his report is marked as Ex.C.1. Ex.C.1 goes to show that the suit schedule property is low-lying and below the level of surrounding land.

50. In the case at hand, in the ROR Register, in the year 1926 / Ex.A.11 which was relied by the plaintiffs, it is noted as a tank bed "Cheruvu Padaka". It is well settled that the tank is outside the purview of zeroyiti land, as per Section 3(g) of Abolition Act, it is abundantly clear that a ryot is entitled only to such rights, as were conveyed on him under the Act and that the Act does not contemplate the issue of ryotwari patta in respect of a tank.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

51. For the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs / respondents.

52. Point No.2:

Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

Learned Government Pleader for defendant No.1 would contend that all the plaintiffs were evicted during the year 1971 itself and the Government taken over the possession of the properties and subsequently those lands were given to defendants 2 to 4 Sangham people. In the written statement itself, the 1st defendant pleaded that all the encroachers were evicted after due enquiry during fasali 1381, corresponding with the year 1971 and subsequently in the year 1972 and 1973, some persons encroached again, who formed into two societies during the year 1974, relinquished their claims and about Ac.70.00 of tank bed land was leased out to three societies / defendants 2 to 4. The 1st defendant specifically pleaded as per the policy of the Government, the tank bed lands were granted on one year lease basis to ryot cooli Sangham and small farmers Sangham in the year 1976. The recitals in the plaint shows that the plaintiffs were dispossessed in the year 1976. The same is specifically denied by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to produce oral and documentary evidence to show that on which date and in which month, they were evicted by the defendants. The defendants contend that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

53. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that the trial Court had categorically dealt with the issue of limitation in accordance with the governing principles of law. As seen from the plaint averments in the plaint, it was specifically contended that they were dispossessed after 29.06.1976. The plaintiffs have cleverly not mentioned the date, month and year of dispossession in the plaint itself. The suit is filed in the month of VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 June, 1988 i.e. on 17.06.1988. Therefore, the exact date and month of dispossession are crucial to decide the subject matter of the limitation.

54. P.W.1 admits she was dispossessed in the month of June, 1976. P.W.3 admits he does not know the contents in the plaint and P.W.3 admits in his evidence before the trial Court on 20.07.1999 that "Sangham people occupied his land at about 23 to 25 years back". It means, in or about 1974 to 1976, they were dispossessed. P.W.4 deposed that the defendants occupied the land in the year 1976, but no report was given to the police. P.W.5 deposed that in or around the year 1976, he was dispossessed. P.W.6 deposed in his evidence that in the year 1976, he was evicted. P.W.7 on behalf of 8th plaintiff deposed that he was evicted in the year 1976. P.W.8 / 9th plaintiff deposed that the suit land was not in his possession from 1976 and they have voluntarily vacated the suit land, then the Government has taken over the possession of the suit land and later given the part of the suit land to Sangham people. P.Ws.9 and 10 admits that they enjoyed the properties till 1976, but they stated that the Sangham people came and trespassed into the land in the year 1976. P.Ws.11 and 12 admits that they were dispossessed in the year 1976. P.W.13 deposed that he enjoyed the property till 1976. Admittedly, the 3rd plaintiff, 5th plaintiff, 7th plaintiff, 10th plaintiff, 12th plaintiff, 15th plaintiff, 17th plaintiff and 22nd plaintiff did not enter into the witness box.

55. As stated supra, in the plaint itself, it was simply pleaded that the plaintiffs were dispossessed after 29.06.1976. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 17.06.1988. Therefore, the date, month and year of dispossession are crucial to decide the subject matter of limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that in computing the period of limitation for any suit of which notice has been given or for which, the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required in accordance with the requirement of any law for the time being in force, the period of VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 such notice or as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction should be excluded.

56. The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.9 legal notice. Ex.A.9 is the legal notice said to have been issued on 12.02.1988 by all the plaintiffs, except the 14th plaintiff. The 14th plaintiff has not issued any notice. Ex.A.8 is legal notice dated 22.02.1988 said to have been issued by the 15th plaintiff and one Chodisetti Subba Rao. The 6th and 7th plaintiffs said to have been issued the legal notice under Ex.A.49 dated 27.12.1976. Ex.A.52 is the another legal notice said to have been issued by Karri Venkata Raju and Karri Ramamurthy on 09.06.1977, they are not the plaintiffs in the suit. Ex.A.146 is another notice dated 25.04.1977 got issued by the 15 th plaintiff and another. The 14th plaintiff has not issued any notice. As seen from the aforesaid legal notices, the 6th and 7th plaintiffs said to have been issued legal notice on 27.12.1976. The 15th plaintiff said to have been issued a legal notice dated 25.04.1977. Ex.A.9 is the latest notice said to have been issued by all the plaintiffs except the 14th plaintiff dated 12.02.1988. If the plaintiffs wants to enjoy the benefit under Section 5(2) of the Limitation Act, they are entitled to avail the same from the date of Ex.A.9 notice from 12.02.1988 but not from 17.04.1988. The suit is filed on 17.06.1988. Therefore, the date of dispossession is crucial to decide the limitation aspect. But, none of the plaintiffs stated in their evidence about the exact date of dispossession. Even in the plaint also, the date, month and year of dispossession is not stated by the plaintiffs.

57. The suit is filed for seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property. The Court fees was paid by the plaintiffs for declaratory relief alone. No separate Court fees has been paid for recovery of possession. Therefore, the relief of recovery of possession is a consequential relief. As stated supra, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title in the plaint schedule property. Since the plaintiffs failed to plead and VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 prove about the exact date, month and year of dispossession in the plaint itself, they simply pleaded in the plaint in para No.IX that after 29.06.1976, they were dispossessed by the defendants. P.W.8 / 9th plaintiff deposed that they voluntarily vacated the land and the Government taken over the possession of the suit land and later given part of the land to the Sangham people.

58. Some of the plaintiffs filed the land revenue receipts. Among those land revenue receipts, two land revenue receipts relates to the month of February, 1975. Remaining plaintiffs have not even filed their land revenue receipts relates to the year 1975. None of the plaintiffs produced any evidence to show that they are in possession of the schedule property from 1975 onwards atleast. As stated supra, the plaintiffs failed to produce 10-1 cultivation account and revenue Adangals to prove their possession over the schedule property.

59. For the aforesaid reasons and considering the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the plaintiffs were dispossessed prior to 1976. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, they filed the suit on 17.06.1988. Though the plaintiffs relied on notice under Section 80 CPC said to have been issued to the 1st defendant in the month of February, 1988, the plaintiffs leisurely approached the civil Court as per their choice and they filed the suit for seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession on 17.06.1988. Therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.

60. Point No.3:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property?

In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, since the plaintiffs are not entitled for primary relief of declaration of title, they are not entitled the relief VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 of recovery of possession of the schedule property. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered.

61. Point No.4:

Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?

For the reasons stated above and having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case. The findings and conclusion recorded by the trial Court are not based on proper appreciation on record. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous and cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and both the appeals are deserves to be allowed.

62. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2001 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.288 of 1988 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.288 of 1988 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is dismissed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 27.10.2025 ARR VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.2533 OF 2001 AND APPEAL SUIT NO.921 OF 2002 Date: 27.10.2025 ARR

LAW FOR ALL

LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

Tuesday, October 28, 2025