G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the L. P. As are directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Single judge in C. C. C. A. No. 211 of 1982, dated 19-12-1997 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 606 of 1971 on the file of the in Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 19-4-1978. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, some of the defendants filed C. C. C. A. No. 60 of 1998 and some others filed C. C. C. A. No. 62 of 1998. LP. A. No. 60 of 1998 was filed by the pendent lite purchasers, who came on record during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Single Judge. ( 2 ) APPELLANT is the Plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for possession. As per the averments made in the plaint, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the plot of measuring Ac. 12-79 cents forming part of Ex-Jagir Yapral village was situated within the Secunderabad cantonment Board boundary. It is comprised of General Land Register s. No. 151 maintained by the Secunderabad cantonment Board. The said Register was prepared in 1932-33. It is stated that the defendant is the brother of one Gopal reddy. They are said to be pattedars for an extent of 62 acres in Yapral village and records are not available for that extent of 9 acres, which falls outside the Cantonment bounds. The Defendant encroached on the government land to the extent of 9 acres covered by G. L. R. Sy. Nos. 150 and 157 which are adjoining Piagah lands in s. No. 151. It is also stated that G. L. R. Sy. Nos. 150 and 157 corresponds to Revenue s. Nos. 214, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221,223,224, 225 and 226. All these lands are classified as a class lands in possession of the military authorities. Survey of India Maps of 1900 and 1918-19 will vouch this situation. These lands are being leased for grazing purposes. It is stated that certain lands falling inside and outside Secunderabad was requisitioned by the civil authorities during the 2nd World War. So also, the land of the ancestors of the Appellant. Accordingly, they were paid the compensation. Survey of India Maps of 1900 and 1918-19 will vouch this situation. These lands are being leased for grazing purposes. It is stated that certain lands falling inside and outside Secunderabad was requisitioned by the civil authorities during the 2nd World War. So also, the land of the ancestors of the Appellant. Accordingly, they were paid the compensation. However, after the requirement was over, the land was released by a relinquishment certificate issued by the Second Talukdar Bhagat on 15-10-1947. It is stated that even though the compensation was paid on account of the requisitioning of the land in Yapral village, but the title in respect of those lands did not vest with the Defendants or their ancestors. It is stated that the Defendants removed the boundary stones and tried to encroach the land. ( 3 ) THE Plaintiff traced their title from 1904 wherein about 200 acres of land from Yapral village and Kowkoor village were acquired by late H. E. H. the Nizam for occupation of the military authorities and the said lands were given to the Union Government without receiving any payment. These records were prepared in 1932-33 and thus the Plaintiff-Union Government tfied to establish the ownership. It is also stated that the survey conducted in 1950 cannot be relied on as it was on the basis of information furnished by Patwari and concerned local persons in the absence of military Estate Officer. Thus, the Plaintiff tried to establish that the records prepared by the revenue authorities have no evidentiary value and that General Land register has to prevail over the revenue records. When the Defendant tried to interfere with the land, the suit was filed for appropriate relief. ( 4 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendants, they denied the title of the plaintiff and also entry made in G. L. R. Sy. No. 151 on the ground that it is a self- serving document. On the other hand, it is stated that the Defendants and their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the land for the last several years. The sethwar and choufasla and other revenue records would clinchingly establish that the defendants and their ancestors are the owners of the property in question. They have denied the suit schedule property is within the Cantonment limits of secunderabad. The sethwar and choufasla and other revenue records would clinchingly establish that the defendants and their ancestors are the owners of the property in question. They have denied the suit schedule property is within the Cantonment limits of secunderabad. In fact, it is stated that the land in question was forming part of Jagir raja Vinayaka and Paigah is nothing to do with the suit lands. It is stated that the defendants were in possession of the lands known as Medibouli in S. Nos. 214,217,218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225 and 226. Out of the said extent, S. Nos. 217 and 218 consisted of temple and burrial ground. As far as s. No. 216 is concerned, it is a Patel kunta belonging to the Defendants, but it became dilapidated. It is stated that a part of the land owned by the Defendants were requisitioned during the 2nd World War and the same was released on 15-4-l947. The defendants further stated that the land in question was surveyed much before in 1950 and the Defendants and predecessors-in- interest were shown as pattedars having possession and enjoyment. Further, it is stated that General Land Register was only prepared in 1933 and whereas the revenue records were much earlier to General Land register. It is further stated that on a complaint made by the M. E. O. with regard to the alleged encroachment, an elaborate enquiry was conducted during the year 1953 to 1957. The Plaintiff adduced evidence, so also the Defendants and the Collector in his file No. 210/86 of 1953, dated 14-10-1957 categorically held that the land belonged to samal Gopal Reddy and that it is not a military land. Plaintiff did not take any action and that the Order became final and therefore, the Order is binding on the plaintiff. It is further stated that the defendants have been in occupation of the land with possession and enjoyment for the last more than 160 years and therefore, the suit field by the Plaintiff was not maintainable. ( 5 ) BASING on the respective contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property and for what purpose the land is being utilised? (2) Whether the suit land was acquired by the Plaintiff? ( 5 ) BASING on the respective contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property and for what purpose the land is being utilised? (2) Whether the suit land was acquired by the Plaintiff? (3) What is the effect of the Order of the collector of Hyderabad on the suit land? (4) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? (5) Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from denying the title and possession of the Defendant and his predecessors-in-interest? (6) Whether the Defendant required title to the suit land by adverse possession? (7) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties? (8) Whether the valuation and Court fee paid are correct? (9) Whether the suit is within time? and (10) To what relief is the Plaintiff entitled to? ( 6 ) ONE witness was examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and Exs. A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, six witnesses were examined and Exs. B-1 to b-14 were marked. Ex. C-1 to C-25 were marked by the Court. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by principles of res judicata and that the Order of Collector cannot be treated as estoppel for denying the title of the Defendants. However, the trial court held that the Plaintiff has not established the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. The lower Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, dismissed the suit by a judgment and decree dated 19-4-1978. Against the said judgment and decree, union of India carried the matter in c. C. C. A. NO. 211 of 1982. The learned Single judge of this Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union by a judgment and decree dated 19-12-1997 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, the present L. P. As. have been filed. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the Order of the learned Single Judge upsetting the judgment and decree of the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, the present L. P. As. have been filed. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the Order of the learned Single Judge upsetting the judgment and decree of the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law. He submits that the learned judge has not adverted to various contentions raised by the Defendant vis-a-vis the Plaintiff. It is further contended that the learned Judge has also not considered the documents filed by the defendants and also the documents called for from various other authorities. It is contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and not sustainable in law. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned standing Counsel for the Central government submits that the judgment is quite legal and valid. The learned Single judge has considered the matter in depth and came to the conclusion that the suit ought not to have been dismissed on limitation aspect and the suit was well within the time. The learned counsel also submits that the finding with regard to the general Land Register entry is quite legal and valid as the said Land Register was maintained under the statutory provisions of the Cantonment Act and it should be presumed that it was maintained in due course. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Plaintiff had never established the title over the suit schedule property. Except relying on General Land register entry, which was one sided, he did not consider other relevant documents filed by the Defendants. He further submits that the order of the Collector was not at all considered by the learned Judge and that the revenue records filed by the Appellant- defendants would clinchingly establish the title and that the revenue records prevail over the entry made in General Land register. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court reported in Union of India v. Vasavi co-operative Housing Society Limited Thus, he submits that the Order is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 11 ) THE facts are not much in dispute. ( 10 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 11 ) THE facts are not much in dispute. That the suit was filed by the Union of India seeking declaration of title and possession. ( 12 ) THE only document on which the title is sought to be established was entry in general Land Register. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule land is covered by general Land Register S. No. 151 and that an extent of 200 acres was handed over by the h. E. H. the Nizam without taking any compensation and therefore, the suit schedule land falls within the Cantonment area of Secunderabad. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the records maintained by the revenue authorities cannot be relied on as the survey made by the survey authorities of the State Government was not in the presence of M. E. O. and that they are based on the advise of the patwari and other local persons. Therefore, any entries made in the revenue register are to be totally discarded. ( 13 ) AS already noted, except General land Register entry and the extract of general Land Register entry and the correspondence relating to the grazing of lands by one Somaiah, no other documents have been filed. On the other hand, the defendants filed the Order of the Collector ex. B-2. Before the Collector, elaborate enquiry was conducted. The M. E. O. had actively participated in the proceedings before the Collector, statements of various witnesses were recorded by the Collector. Comparative statement of the survey numbers both revenue and General Land register, Sethwar village plans, land revenue receipts and other revenue records connected with the land in question was filed before him. Further, in the suit these documents were also called from the collector. These and other documents were marked as Ex. C-1 to C-25. The learned trial court has held that the suit was barred by limitation as the Defendants were in possession of the suit schedule land in the capacity of the owners. More over, the plaintiffs have not taken appropriate action when the cause of action arose and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even on merits also, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Plaintiff has not established the title over the suit schedule property. More over, the plaintiffs have not taken appropriate action when the cause of action arose and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even on merits also, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Plaintiff has not established the title over the suit schedule property. ( 14 ) THE learned Single Judge of this Court observed that in cases where Government is a party, the personal knowledge of the officers of the Government cannot be taken into account. On the other hand, the documents will establish the case. He considered Ex. A-6, which is letter addressed by the H. E. H. the Nizam expressing his intention not to take any compensation for the land. He has also taken into consideration the Ex. A-9, wherein the entire history of the land was traced out. The learned Single Judge has also relied on Ex. A-12, which is a General Land register, which purportedly conforms the title of the Central Government. Thus he held that when once the Plaintiffs have established their title by virtue of Ex. A-12 and in the absence of Defendant establishing that they perfected their title by adverse possession, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. On this ground, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. ( 15 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the learned single Judge is sustainable in law? ( 16 ) IN this regard, it has to be noted, the suit was filed by the Union of India for declaration of title and possession on the basic premise that it is a Defence land to which effect an entry is made in General land Register S. No. 151. Strongly reacting to. this register, the Defendants placed enormous evidence by filing various revenue records and other documents including the enquiry proceedings, which took place before the Collector. ( 17 ) THE learned Judge has solely relied on general Land Register and did not discuss the effect and efficacy of the entry in General land Register. Whether the entry in General land Register confers the title on the Union of India, is yet, another thing which ought to be decided. It is well settled that mere entries in the concerned Registers cannot confer a title, unless such entry is given a statutory recognition that the entry constitutes a title. This is totally absent in this case. Whether the entry in General land Register confers the title on the Union of India, is yet, another thing which ought to be decided. It is well settled that mere entries in the concerned Registers cannot confer a title, unless such entry is given a statutory recognition that the entry constitutes a title. This is totally absent in this case. Except the entry and the letter alleged to have been issued by the H. E. H. the Nizam handing over the 200 acres of land which allegedly includes the suit schedule land, no other evidence is forthcoming. Further, mere misplacement or displacement of the boundary stones would not establish the title. On the other hand, enormous documents have been filed by the defendants including Sethwar, Pauthi Bai, land receipts and other connected documents. Strong reliance was placed by the Defendants that the Order of the collector became final in which it was clearly held that the Defendants are pattedars of the land in question and that the order became final and therefore, the learned judge ought to have taken this into consideration and decide the matter. ( 18 ) WE have perused the judgment under appeal and we find that the learned Judge failed to consider any of the documents filed by the Defendants. What was relied on by him was only Ex. A-6, A-9 and A-12. He never made any reference to other documents filed by the Defendants. Appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and it is incumbent on the part of the learned Judge to discuss the evidence available on both sides and record a finding. These are totally absent in this case. We may also state that the learned Single Judge has not framed the issues for determination in conformity with the Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is not in dispute that the land is situated in a predominantly developed area and the value of the land is very costly and exorbitant. We are aware of the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters patent. It is beyond pale of controversy that the Division Bench is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact as well as the law recorded by the learned Single Judge. We are aware of the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters patent. It is beyond pale of controversy that the Division Bench is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact as well as the law recorded by the learned Single Judge. But, however, as observed by the Supreme court, appellate Bench must be slow in interfering with the Order of the learned single Judge. ( 19 ) AS already observed by us, the learned Judge has not properly adverted to the evidence adduced and also voluminous documentary evidence marked by the defendants. Though, it is a matter, which could have been remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration, but in view of the fact that heavy stakes are involved for non-prosecution of the case effectively by the officer at the helm of affairs should not cause prejudice to the plaintiff-Central Government in any manner. We find it desirable that the matter should be reconsidered by the trial Court afresh, more especially in the wake of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra. ( 20 ) UNDER these circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge and also the trial Court and remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. ( 21 ) WE leave it open to the parties to reduce any further evidence if they so choose. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy this Order.