P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the courts below are the appellants in the present Second Appeal. The said plaintiffs in yet another suit O. S. No. 174/88 on the file of junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam filed i. A. No. 1414 of 1998 under Section 10 r/w. Section 151 C. P. C. praying for the stay of proceedings on the ground that the subject matter of the property being one and the same and inasmuch as S. A. No. 431/95 is pending on the file of this Court, the said suit has to be stayed at least till the disposal of the Second Appeal. The said application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same the Civil Revision Petition was preferred and that is how both the matters are coining up before this Court for final disposal. ( 2 ) SRI Srinivas Rao and Sri veerabhadryya, counsel representing the respective parties had made elaborate submissions. The learned counsel for the appellants at the outset had submitted that the Civil Revision Petition was filed only with a view to have stay of suit till disposal of the Second Appeal and hence inasmuch as the Second Appeal is being disposed of, the relief prayed for in the Civil Revision petition no longer survives. The learned counsel had made elaborate submissions about the oral and documentary evidence and also pointed out that the very approach of the Courts below cannot be said to be in accordance with law and definitely it is erroneous. The learned counsel also had pointed out that the Courts below had recorded certain unnecessary findings as though Surisetty family is not having title at all to the plaint A and B schedule property or at any rate the plaintiffs were unable to establish their title relating to both plaint A and B schedule property. The learned counsel pointed out that even according to the defendants, the plaintiffs are the owners of the Western side 50 1/2cents and they are disputing the plaintiffs claim over the Eastern side 50 1/2 cents shown as b schedule contending that the 1st defendant was entitled to half of the total of ac. 1-01 cents on the ground that Ac. 1-01 cents on the ground that Ac. 1-01 cents belonged to Surisetty Rama Swamy, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of other plaintiffs and his brother Rajanna, the 1st defendant, as their joint family property and the 1st defendant and his son, the 2nd defendant, the contesting defendants purchased B schedule property. When that being so, the Courts below had totally erred in deciding that the plaintiffs have no title at all to the entire plaint A schedule property which is not the subject matter of dispute since B schedule property is only a portion of plaint A schedule property. In other words, the findings given by both the Courts relating to the rest of the extent of the plaint a schedule is not a matter of dispute of controversy between the parties at all and hence making out a new case and recording finding thereon definitely is impermissible in law. The learned counsel also had taken me through the findings recorded by both the Courts and also pointed out to Ex. A-1 to a-11, Ex. X-1, Exs. B-1 to B-9 and the oral evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 3 and D. W. I to d. W. 4 and had submitted that the approach of both the Courts below in appreciation of evidence is definitely unsustainable. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellate Court also had totally erred in dismissing I. A. No. 103/94 filed under order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. for reception of additional evidence. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel representing the respondents had contended that the respondents are concerned with only the plaint B schedule property and they are not concerned with the rest of the extent other than B schedule property. The learned counsel also submitted that the contesting defendants had purchased the property from the 1st defendant by virtue of registered sale deeds having detected that the total extent is not of the branch of the plaintiffs only and the half extent covered by plaint B schedule belonged to the 1st defendant s branch. The learned counsel also submitted that the contesting defendants had purchased the property from the 1st defendant by virtue of registered sale deeds having detected that the total extent is not of the branch of the plaintiffs only and the half extent covered by plaint B schedule belonged to the 1st defendant s branch. The learned counsel also submitted that even otherwise it is a suit for declaration of title relating to plaint B schedule property as shown in A. E. F. D. in the plaint plan and for delivery of possession and in any event since the plaintiffs were unable to establish their case in view of several of the discrepancies and on the ground of want of evidence also, the suit was dismissed since the plaintiffs were unable to discharge the burden in a suit for ejectment of this nature and hence there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal and in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) IT is pleaded in the plaint in o. S. No391/83 on the file of Principal subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam that 1st plaintiff is the wife, plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and plaintiffs 5 to 7 are the daughters of surisetti Ramaswamy who died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. The 1st defendant is the brother of late Ramaswamy and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. Late Ramaswamy was the absolute owner of the plaint A schedule of an extent of Ac. 1-01 cents in S. No. 107, situate in Chinagadili village. The plaint A schedule property is the self-acquired property of late ramaswamy which was acquired along with three others who cultivated jointly and obtained a ryotwari patta. In the division between the four sharers, late Ramaswamy got an extent of Acs. 1-01 cents described as in the plaint schedule. The 1st defendant lived with his father-in-law and has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Late ramaswamy enjoyed the plaint schedule property during his life time. After his death, plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by late Ramaswamy. The 1st defendant lived with his father-in-law and has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Late ramaswamy enjoyed the plaint schedule property during his life time. After his death, plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by late Ramaswamy. Late ramaswamy otherwise also perfected his title to the schedule property by adverse possession. Ramaswamy died in December 1977 and the plaint schedule property devolved on the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs raised cashewznut garden in the entire extent and about two months back, the defendants 4 and 5 got cut the cashewnut in a portion of the land and constructed boundary wall taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and when plaintiffs 3 and 4 questioned the defendants 4 and 5, they informed that they were inducted into possession by defendants 1 to 3 in plaint B schedule land which is the part of plaint A schedule. On enquiry, the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants 1 and 2 without any manner of right or title had dealt with 50 1/2 cents of land and some other documents were executed in favour of defendants 6 and 7. The said documents are not binding on the plaintiffs and they will not create any right and title in the defendants. The documents, if any, are only nominal, collusive and sham and they are only to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. The defendants are claiming that the plaint B schedule property belongs to them. The defendants are trying to dispute the plaintiffs title in respect of plaint b schedule. The cashewnut tope was cut forcibly about two months back and the defendants 4 and 5 constructed the boundary wall in a portion of the plaint B schedule and hence the suit for declaration of title for the plaint B schedule land as shown in A. E. D. F. and for consequential relief of recovery of vacant possession of the plaint B schedule against all the defendants. ( 6 ) A written statement had been filed on behalf of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant had denied all the allegations. The defendant 1 and 8 had filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 2nd defendant. ( 6 ) A written statement had been filed on behalf of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant had denied all the allegations. The defendant 1 and 8 had filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 2nd defendant. It was pleaded that late ramaswamy and the 1st defendant were the members of Hindu Undivided Family and the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of late Ramaswamy and the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is entitled to undivided half share in the plaint schedule property along with his brother late Ramaswamy. Late Ramaswamy acknowledged the same in the legal notice dated 25-6-1974 issued through his advocate Sri B. B. Sankara Sastry to the notice issued by P. R. Roy on behalf of the 6th defendant and the husband of the 3rd defendant on an agreement executed by late ramaswamy and sons, the plaintiffs 2 to 4. The plaintiffs never enjoyed the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant is entitled to half share which was sold to defendants 3 and 6. The plaintiffs have no right to question the sale deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 6. The said documents are neither collusive nor nominal. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any declaration and possession and granting of patta is not correct. The schedule is not correct. The defendants 3 and 6 perfected their title to plaint B schedule property by adverse possession. Then 2nd defendant is entitled to exemplary costs. ( 7 ) THE 5th defendant filed a written statement with the following allegations. The plaintiffs have no right and title to the property. The defendants 1 and 2 sold 50 1/2 cents of land in S. Nos. 107/1 and 107/2 on 6-10-1977 to defendants 3 and 6 and they took possession of the property. The defendants 3 and 6 divided 50 1/2cents of land and the 6th defendant sold 30 cents to the 7th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 4-9-1978. The 5th defendant purchased 4 cents out of 30 cents from the 7th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 10-10-1983 and the 5th defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 3rd defendant sold 20 cents to 4th defendant under a sale deed dt. 11-8-1982. Thus the defendants 4 and 5 had been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. The 3rd defendant sold 20 cents to 4th defendant under a sale deed dt. 11-8-1982. Thus the defendants 4 and 5 had been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants and their predecessors-in-title had been in continuous and effective possession of the land exercising absolute rights of ownership for well over a statutory period and perfected their title by adverse possession, and after the 4th defendant purchased 20 cents of land from the 3rd defendant, the 4th defendant constructed a compound wall. They spent about rs. 35,000/ -. The plaintiffs were aware of the said fact and never objected and the plaintiffs are estopped in asserting any title in the property under the doctrine of lapse and lying by. The cause of action is not true. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any declaration and for recovery of possession, It was further pleaded that the 5th defendant does not admit the truth, validity and binding nature of the Adangal extract. The plaint plan and the schedule are not correct the boundaries are not correct and the suit claim is barred by limitation. ( 8 ) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 5th defendant. ( 9 ) THE 6th defendant filed a written statement with the following allegations, late Ramaswamy and the 1st defendani were members of undivided property. The plaint schedule property was the joinl family property of late 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is entitled to an undivided half share in the plaint A schedule property the 1st defendant enjoyed the property along with his brother Ramaswamy and late ramaswamy acknowledged the reply notice dated 25-6-1974 issued through hi advocate B. B. Sankara Sastry to the notice issued by P. R. Roy, Advocate on behalf of the 6th defendant and the husband of the 3rd defendant on the basis of the agreement executed by Ramaswamy, plaintiffs 2,3,4 and 5. The plaintiffs never enjoyed the plaint a schedule property. The 1st defendant is entitled to half share and the same was sold to this defendant and the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant sold her share to the defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiffs have no right in the plaint B schedule property. The documents are not collusive, nominal and sham. The plaintiffs never enjoyed the plaint a schedule property. The 1st defendant is entitled to half share and the same was sold to this defendant and the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant sold her share to the defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiffs have no right in the plaint B schedule property. The documents are not collusive, nominal and sham. The plaintiffs are not entitled to question the sale deeds in favour of this defendant and the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any declaration and for recovery of possession. The Court fee paid is not correct. The valuation is rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in the locality. The plaint schedule, the plaint plan and the boundaries are not correct. The suit is barred by limitation. The 6th defendant perfected his title by adverse possession to the plaint B schedule property. ( 10 ) THE 7th defendant filed a written statement pleading as follows. The 7th defendant is in possession of a part of plaint b schedule in her own right and got perfected title to the same. Defendants 3 and 6 purchased 501/2cents of land is s. No. 107/1 and 2 in Chinagantyada village from defendants 1 and 2 under a registered sale deed dated 6-10-1971 for Rs. 1,500. 00. The 6th defendant sold his half share of vacant land to the 7th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 4-9-1978 for Rs. 7,500. 00. The 3rd defendant sold her half share to defendants 4 and 5. The defendant is a bona fide purchaser of the part of the plaint schedule for a valuable consideration and thus acquired right, title and interest in the property. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not true. The suit had been under valued and the Court fee paid is not correct. The plaint plan and the schedule also are not correct. It was further pleaded that late Ramaswamy had no right and title to the property. ( 11 ) ON the strength of the above pleadings, the Issues were settled and on behalf of the plaintiffs P. W. I to P. W. 3 were examined and on behalf of the defendants, d. W. I to D. W. 4 were examined. Exs. A-1 to a-11, Ex. X-1 and Exs. B-1 to B-9 also were marked. ( 11 ) ON the strength of the above pleadings, the Issues were settled and on behalf of the plaintiffs P. W. I to P. W. 3 were examined and on behalf of the defendants, d. W. I to D. W. 4 were examined. Exs. A-1 to a-11, Ex. X-1 and Exs. B-1 to B-9 also were marked. The Court of first instance after elaborate discussion and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the plaint schedule property and ultimately dismissed the suit, however, without costs. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs preferred A. S. No. 140/90 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam and at the appellate stage, they also filed an application I. A. No. 103/94 for reception of additional evidence and the appeal was dismissed along with the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal had been preferred. No doubt, the learned counsel representing the appellants had made elaborate submissions pointing out several discrepancies relating to the revenue records and the entries made therein and the observations relating to six persons or four persons shown in the Adangal. These are all factual details which had been discussed at length by both the Courts below. At the outset, it can be stated that it is nobody s case that this total extent of AC. 1-01 cents is not that of Surisetty s family. Even the contesting defendants, the purchasers from the 1st defendant, had taken a stand that they are entitled to the respective extents purchased by them by virtue of the fact that the 1st defendant, as the owner of the property had sold the said extent in their favour. Hence, the findings recorded beyond the respective pleadings of the parties and the case as set up by the defendants definitely is impermissible in law and hence the findings recorded by both the Courts below relating to the rest of the extent of the property covered by A schedule, other than the plaint B schedule, inasmuch as the said rest of the extent is not the subject matter of the dispute, cannot be said to be sustainable findings since virtually it will amount to making out a new case which is not pleaded by either of the parties. Suffice for me to record such a finding in the Second Appeal to make it clear that the findings recorded by both the courts below relating to the rest of the extent of the plaint A schedule are in no way operative and binding between the parties since definitely these are findings not germane to the present litigation since the dispute is relating to plaint B schedule property only. The case of the plaintiffs no doubt is that they are the owners of Ac. 1-01 cents is S. No. 107 of Chinnagadi village. P. W. I had deposed about all the aspects in detail, Exs. A-1 to A-5 are the revenue receipts. Ex. A-6 is the true extract of fair adangal register in respect of S. Nos. 107/1 and 107/2, Ex. X-1 is the original of Ex. A-6. The names shown in Ex. X-1 and the extents and the other aspects had been dealt with in detail by both the Courts below and no doubt some doubt was expressed whether ramaswamy mentioned in the said document is the self-same Ramaswamy or a different Ramaswamy. It is pertinent to note that it is nobody s case and the other parties are not parties to the present litigation and hence those findings are not germane to the present litigation, suffice to state that the plaintiffs by letting in evidence of P. W. I to p. W. 3 and also Exs. A-1 to A-11 and Ex. X-1 were unable to establish title to the plaint B schedule property and hence by virtue of the sale deeds the contesting defendants are bound to succeed relating to the respective items purchased by them under the registered sale deeds Exs. B-4 and B-5, exs. B-1 to B-9 were marked and also the evidence of D. W. I to D. W. 4 had been let in. Ex. A-7 is the notice dated 7-6-1974 wherein it was mentioned that the father of P. W. I executed agreement of sale in respect of the total extent. But however, convincing reasons had been recorded under what circumstances the said notice was issued and under what circumstances after detecting that the 1st defendant was entitled to the rest of the half share, the contesting defendants had purchased the properties. But however, convincing reasons had been recorded under what circumstances the said notice was issued and under what circumstances after detecting that the 1st defendant was entitled to the rest of the half share, the contesting defendants had purchased the properties. The evidence of D. W. I, D. W. 2, D. W. 3 and d. W. 4 also had been discussed in detail and the recital in Ex. B-7 also had been discussed. No doubt, certain arguments had been advanced relating to the signature of b. Shankara Sastry and how it was proved through D. W. 4. As already referred to supra, these are all factual details and findings had been recorded in detail relating to Ex. A-7 and also Ex. B-7. ( 12 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 is in relation to the patta proceedings shown in Ex. X-1 and this evidence no doubt definitely throws light to the effect that the plaint A schedule property belonged to Surisetty s family and no doubt since the 1st defendant being the brother, in the light of the stand taken by him and inasmuch as he was entitled to the specific property, had sold the properties by virtue of registered sale deeds, the dispute appears to be that one branch of the family, wanted to claim total extent and the other, branch of the family had disputed it and at some point of time an attempt was made by one branch of the family to sell the total extent and in the said attempt the said branch was not successful and the contesting defendants, the purchasers, had; purchased the respective extents, the portions of the plaint B schedule from the 1st defendant s branch. This appears to be the clear case of both the parties as reflected from the pleadings and also the oral and: documentary evidence and hence I am of the considered opinion that the other findings recorded beyond the pleadings and beyond the respective cases of the parties and beyond the subject matter of the litigation i. e. , plaint B schedule property, are not binding on the parties. It is brought to my notice that certain other litigations also are pending and the findings recorded by both the courts below pertain to only the subject matter of the suit i. e. , plaint b schedule property alone and not beyond it. It is brought to my notice that certain other litigations also are pending and the findings recorded by both the courts below pertain to only the subject matter of the suit i. e. , plaint b schedule property alone and not beyond it. Except making this observation, clarifying the findings which had been recorded by both the Courts below, inasmuch as the learned Counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any substantial question of law to be decided in the Second Appeal, i am not inclined to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the appellate Court also had recorded reasons in detail why the additional evidence need not be received at the appellate stage and in view of the convincing reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding recorded by the appellate Court. Viewed from any angle, the Second Appeal is devoid of merits. ( 13 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed only with a view to get stay of the suit on the ground that the result of the said suit may depend upon the result of the present second Appeal and in view of the same, no further orders are required in the Civil revision Petition. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, both the Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition are hereby dismissed, but however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, without costs.