( 1 ) THE 1st respondent, who is no more, filed OS No. 214 of 1999 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, avanigadda, against the petitioner herein, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, he died, and the 2nd respondent was brought on record as legal representative. The claim of the respondents is that the suit schedule property was assigned to them, by the Government, in the year 1992, and despite the same, the petitioner is claiming title over it. ( 2 ) PETITIONER filed written-statement, opposing the claim of the respondents. He pleaded that his predecessors in title purchased the land, way back in the year 1948, and he in turn, purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1999. He further pleaded that the patta granted in faovur of the 1st respondent, under the provisions of the A. P. Home Steads Act (for short the Act ) is contrary to the law, and the prescribed procedure was not followed. ( 3 ) THE trial of the suit commenced. When the turn of the petitioner to adduce his evidence came, he filed IA No. 1174 of 2004, with a prayer to summon the mandal Revenue Officer, Kodur, and to require him to file five documents mentioned therein. Through its order dated 29-9-2004, the trial Court dismissed the IA. Hence, this revision. ( 4 ) SRI V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client specifically pleaded that the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Act and in fact, on account of several irregularities committed by the then Mandal Revenue officer, he was placed him under suspension. Learned Counsel contends that the documents, mentioned in the application, if summoned, would clearly disclose that the patta granted in favour of the respondents is unenforceable in law. ( 5 ) MS. V. Hima Bindu, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the documents, which are sought to be summoned, have no relevance to the subject-matter of the suit. ( 5 ) MS. V. Hima Bindu, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the documents, which are sought to be summoned, have no relevance to the subject-matter of the suit. According to her, the 2nd respondent has discharged her burden by placing the relevant material before the Court, to establish her title to the suit schedule property, and the various documents, which are sought to be summoned, have nothing to dp with the same. ( 6 ) THE suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. Basically, it is for the plaintiff to establish the title, over the suit schedule property. The defendant can point out the defects in title, pleaded by the plaintiff. In the instant case, the respondents based their title on a patta, granted by the mandal Revenue Officer, under the Act. The plea of the petitioner is that the original land owners were not issued proper notices, as required under the Act, before the land was resumed to the Government, or the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner. Such a plea could have been permitted, if only it was raised by the original land owner, that too, by way of challenge to the relevant proceedings. The petitioner came to picture, only in the year 1999, and before that the respondents were granted patta. ( 7 ) AS long as the original land owner did not initiate any proceedings, challenging the various orders passed in respect of his lands, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, it is impermissible for the petitioner, a subsequent purchaser, to plead the alleged invalidity of the patta. At any rate, the various documents, that are sought to be summoned, are in relation to the patta granted in favour of the respondents. The petitioner did not show as to how they are relevant for the purpose of establishing his case. ( 8 ) THIS Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The CRP is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.