JUDGMENT The legal representative of the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 1974 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, is the appellant. The suit was tiled against the 1st respondent, (who is since dead and represented by legal representative), claiming the relief of recovery of possession, and mesne profits, in respect of about Acs.6-00 of land in Sy. No.540 of Cheriyal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff pleaded that he purchased 3 acres each, under two separate agreements, dated 01-06-1963, marked as Exs.A-14 and A-16, for a consideration of RS.500/- per acre from one, Veera Brahmam, and that possession was delivered to him, on the same day. Separate receipts marked as Exs. A-15 and A-17 are said to have been issued, acknowledging the payment of consideration. According to him, one Ranga Rao was the original owner of the land, and from him Veerabhrahmam purchased it, in 1337 Fasli, under EX.A-27. 4. It was also pleaded that before purchasing the property, the plaintiff filed a suit against his vendor for recovery of certain amount in the Munsif Court, Jangaon, the suit was decreed and E.P.No.1/2 of 1356 Fasli, was filed for execution of the decree. The suit schedule property was attached under the E.P. and the defendant filed a claim petition stating that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. The Executing Court, however, rejected his claim through its order, which is marked as EX.A-13. 5. The plaintiff complained that he was dispossessed from the land under a panchanama, dated 28-05-1968, under the orders of Tahasildar, Jangaon, at the instance of the respondent. The background of the panchanama is that the defendant approached Tahasildar with an application that he is the pattadar and the vendor of the plaintiff and another person, by name, Venkateshwarlu are the protected tenants and since they committed default in payment of rent, and permitted others to cultivate the land, they are liable to be evicted and that he be delivered possession of the land. The plaintiff pleaded that there was collusion between his vendor and the defendant. 6. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff tiled O.S.No.39 of 1968 in the Court of District Munsif, Jangaon, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff pleaded that there was collusion between his vendor and the defendant. 6. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff tiled O.S.No.39 of 1968 in the Court of District Munsif, Jangaon, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the dispossession took place in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short "the Act"). Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.571 of 1970 before this Court. The CRP was dismissed, with an observation that if he is disputing the very rights of his vendors, as tenants, or that of the defendant, as landlord, it shall be open to him to file a regular suit. 7. The defendant filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. He pleaded that he is the pattadar of the land and Mr. Veerabrahmam and Venkateshwarlu were the protected tenants of the suit schedule property. He stated that he approached Tahasildar with an application under Sections 19 and 28 of the Act and that after conducting enquiry and recording the statements of the tenants, the concerned authorities delivered possession of the land. He raised several other contentions also. 8. After conducting detailed trial, the trial Court dismissed the suitthrough its judgment, dated 27-02-1987. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed A.S.No. 76 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Warangal. The appeal was also dismissed on 20-8-1992. Hence, this second appeal. 9. Sri K. Raghuveera Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the defendant took inconsistent pleas at various points of time before different authorities vis-a-vis the land and that the Courts below did not take the same into account. He contends that before the Executing Court in E.P.No.1/2 of 1356 Fasli, the defendant submitted a claim stating that he is in possession of the land and he did not plead that Veerabrahmam and Venkateshwarlu are his tenants. Learned counsel points out that after undertaking elaborate discussion, the Executing Court held that the defendant had access to revenue records and he took false and inconsistent pleas by manipulating the records and colluding with Veerabrahmam, who figured as judgment debtor therein. Learned counsel points out that after undertaking elaborate discussion, the Executing Court held that the defendant had access to revenue records and he took false and inconsistent pleas by manipulating the records and colluding with Veerabrahmam, who figured as judgment debtor therein. He further contends that the Courts below erred in taking the view that the transaction of the plaintiff with Veerabrahmam was hit by Section 47 of the Act, when admittedly no sale, as such, has taken place. It is also his case that the views expressed by the Courts below, as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court vis-a-vis the provisions of the Act, cannot be sustained, particularly in view of the orders passed by this Court in CRP.No.571 of 1970. 10. Sri Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel forthe defendant, on the other hand, submits that the re is voluminous documentary evidence to disclose that his client is the pattadar and landlord and that he recovered possession of the land from the protected tenants, by initiating the proceedings, under the relevant provisions of the Act. He contends that once the entries in the revenue records, declaring Veerabrahmam and Venkateshwarlu, as protected tenants, have become final, it is not at all open to the plaintiff to assail them. 11. The plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land, under a panchanama, dated 28-05-1968, drawn by the office of the Tahasildar, Jangaon. The said panchanama was conducted, at the instance of the defendant herein. In his application tiled under Sections 19 and 28 of the Act, he pleaded that the two protected tenants committed default in payment of the rent and permitted others to cultivate the land. On being dispossessed, the plaintiff tiled O.S.No.39 of 1998 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was rightly dismissed in view of the fact that the dispossession of the plaintiff was under the proceedings initiated under the Act. In C.R.P.No.571 of 1970, filed by the plaintiff, this Court observed that it shall be open to him to file a regular suit, for redressal of his grievance. 12. In the instant suit, the trial Court framed as many as 15 issues. Important among them are issue Nos.1 to 4. Rest of them are either supplemental or ancillary to the above issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-30 were marked. 12. In the instant suit, the trial Court framed as many as 15 issues. Important among them are issue Nos.1 to 4. Rest of them are either supplemental or ancillary to the above issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-30 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-33 were marked. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed. 13. Very strong case and substantial question of law must exist to enable the High Court to interfere in a second appeal, with the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial and first appellate Courts. This Court is of the view that more than one substantial questions of law, fall for consideration in the second appeal. Apart from adjudication of such questions, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal1 needs to be kept in mind. 14. Basically, once an individual is recognized as a protected tenant under the Act and any proceedings are initiated in relation to such rights, the corresponding remedies have also to be worked out, under it. Where however, the very basis of such rights becomes shaky, the residuary and overall jurisdiction of the Civil Courts does not stand excluded. 15. No further consideration of the matter would have become necessary, had it been a case where the recognition of the vendor of the plaintiff as protected tenant and recording of the defendant herein as pattadar, were not preceded by any proceedings in law. As observed earlier, Veerabrahmam, the vendor of the plaintiff, purchased the suit land under EX.A-27 way back in the year 1927 from one Mr. Ranga Rao. The plaintiff filed a suit against Veerabrahmam for recovery of certain amount. The decree became final and E.P.No.1/2 of 1356 Fasli was filed. The suit schedule property was got attached. The defendant came forward with a plea that he is in possession of the land. According to him, he purchased it from Veerabrahmam and mutation has taken place in the revenue records. He did not plead that Veerabrahmam was his tenant or that he is the original owner of the land. On the other hand, his case was that one Palla Markandaiah was his tenant. EX.A-13 is the order passed by the Executing Court. According to him, he purchased it from Veerabrahmam and mutation has taken place in the revenue records. He did not plead that Veerabrahmam was his tenant or that he is the original owner of the land. On the other hand, his case was that one Palla Markandaiah was his tenant. EX.A-13 is the order passed by the Executing Court. It is apt to extract the observations of the Executing Court, while dealing with the claim petition, filed by the defendant herein. The relevant paras read, as under: "If the statement of the objector is taken for granted as true, the documents will not be effective on account of its being legally defective. It seems that the facts of sale is not true and so no sale deed was produced by the objector in support of it. What all the statements have been given they are fictitious and no inference in favour of the objector can be drawn. There are discrepancies also in this case. In respect of patta the objector deposed that it has been made in his name but in the same breath he says that in Jamabandi records it has not been recorded as such. The patta becomes completed when it is recorded in Jamabandi. So it is evident that the story of patta is not real. A letter addressed to Mokaddam Patwari by Tehsil for recording in Jamabandi is produced. How this came in objection proceedings is not known. The objector does not possess any reliable written proof which could substantiate mutation of patta. But this much is evident that during all this time the objector was very active in Revenue department. So much so that when the records are called for by the 1st talukdar office in connection with identification it is written there that the patta is being mutated. The clever objector has been constantly striving hard through all possible means to make the court believe that there is truth in his averments. The evidence produced by the objector does not support him. The account books prepared by the objector have been produced by the decree-holder in his rebuttal evidence. These account books are possessed by the objector. Exhibits A-16 to 25 entries made in the name of the judgment-debtor go to discredit the averments made by the objector. The evidence produced by the objector does not support him. The account books prepared by the objector have been produced by the decree-holder in his rebuttal evidence. These account books are possessed by the objector. Exhibits A-16 to 25 entries made in the name of the judgment-debtor go to discredit the averments made by the objector. So much so it reveals that the objector is interested in the judgment-debtor and he has given him financial help to bear the expenses of litigation. Such a judgment-debtor who has become a tool in the hands of creditor cannot be expected to depose the true facts." 16. The defendant permitted these observations and findings against him, to become final. The emphasis on these observations is only to point out that the defendant has access to revenue records and he did not spare any step, to mislead the courts more so, the revenue authorities, with the sole object of making a claim to the land. 17. On his part, the plaintiff proved Exs.A-14 and A-16 by examining himself as well as the attestor i.e., P.W.2. The entries in the revenue records clearly disclose that between the years 1963 and till the date of dispossession, he continued to be in possession. Though the entry recognizing an individual as a protected tenant has got its own significance, it cannot be permitted to outweigh the findings of fact, recorded by Courts in the proceedings to which all the concerned are parties. In EX.A-13 rendered in 1356 Fasli, which corresponds to 1946, it was clearly held that Veerabrahmam is the owner and possessor of the land and that the claim of the defendant was untenable. No endeavour was made by the defendant to demonstrate as to how he became the owner and that Veerabrahmam became his tenant. Further, the title acquired by Veerabrahmam under EX.A-27 remained intact and there is nothing on record to disclose as to how ownership terminated, except through Exs.A-14 and A-16 in favour of the plaintiff. 18. It was already pointed out that an issue was framed to the effect as to whether the defendant purchased the suit schedule property. He utterly failed on this aspect and no finding was recorded to the effect that he purchased the suit schedule property. 18. It was already pointed out that an issue was framed to the effect as to whether the defendant purchased the suit schedule property. He utterly failed on this aspect and no finding was recorded to the effect that he purchased the suit schedule property. Time and again, Courts have held that mere entries in the revenue records do not either confer the title or remove the one, existing, in relation to an immovable property. 19. The manner in which the defendant got the plaintiff evicted is also significant and would certainly tell upon the genuinity of the so called protected tenant. It is trite that the Act is a part of agrarian reforms, undertaken at the advent of independence. The protection accorded to an individual, recognized as a protected tenant is so extensive that he can be conferred rights of ownership under Section 38-E of the Act. The Act and the Rules are framed in such a manner as to ensure that the rights of protected tenants are preserved at any cost. Hardly, an instance exists wherein a protected tenant wholly withdraws the land and states that he has no objection for the land being made over to the landlord. 20. The defendant instituted proceedings before the Tahasildar under Sections 19 and 32 of the Act for resumption of land from his alleged tenants viz., Veerabrahmam, the vendor of the plaintiff and Venkateshwarlu. It is interesting to read the statement recorded from Veerabrahmam, which reads as under: "Palla Veerabrahmam, S/o. Kdondaiah, Caste; Golla, 60 years, resident of Cheriyal, Cultivation. B. Nooruddin pattedar of S.No.540 extent 12 acres 23 guntas situated at Cheriyal village has filed a suit against me for default of payment of rent since three years. I hold 1/3rd area i.e., 4 acres seven guntas as protected tenancy. Since three years I have not paid any rent to pattedar. I am not in a position to pay arrears. It is a fact that I have allowed strangers to cultivate the land as I was intending to migrate to my native village Mulkamula in GunturTaluq, District Guntur. I am not doing personal cultivation of the land. I have no interest with the land as I have determined to shift permanently to my village in Guntur District. It is a fact that I have allowed strangers to cultivate the land as I was intending to migrate to my native village Mulkamula in GunturTaluq, District Guntur. I am not doing personal cultivation of the land. I have no interest with the land as I have determined to shift permanently to my village in Guntur District. In these circumstances I have no objection if my tenancy is terminated and if the pattedar is put in possession of the land. I am giving the statement out of my volition and without any coercion or pressure." 21. The statement recorded from another tenant is verbatim, the same. It was clearly admitted that certain others were cultivating the land as on the date of that statement. The reference was obviously to the plaintiff. No efforts were made either by the defendant or by the Tahasildar to ascertain as to what rights, the so called strangers have, vis-a-vis the land, particularly when they were admittedly cultivating the land: The only inference that can be drawn is that the whole machinery under the Act was put to gross misuse and the rights of the plaintiff were defeated by undertaking a panchanama on the strength of such fraudulent proceedings. It hardly needs an emphasis that fraud vitiates everything and courts would never extend their helping hand to or approve of such steps, howsoever legal they may appear to be. 22. So far as the plea, as to the maintainability of the suit is concerned, it is true that Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, bars the suit, in which the orders passed under that Act are challenged. In the instant case, appellant did not challenge any proceedings initiated under the Act. He is not a party to any such proceedings. His endeavour was to recover possession of the land. In Prabhulingam v. Ramaiafil it was held that the bar contained under Section 99 of the Act does not apply to 3rd parties, vis-a-vis the proceedings under that Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the respondent (sic. appellant) was barred under the Act. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is allowed. The judgments and decree passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Court, are set aside, and consequently, the suit was stand decreed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.