( 1 ) HEARD Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing appellants and sri B. N. Swamiji, learned counsel representing respondent. ( 2 ) THIS Court on 8. 12. 1997 made the following order: "in view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No. 6 (a) of the grounds of Appeal, the Second Appeal is admitted". The said ground No. 6 (a) reads as hereunder: "whether, in the absence of permission from the Tahsildar under Section 47 of a. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, unregistered sale deed under Ex. B1 in favour of the defendants confers any title and what is the effect of and whether the sale is void". ( 3 ) INCIDENTALLY the counsel representing appellants also had pointed out to yet another substantial question of law. e. , "whether ex parte finding in a simple suit for injunction will operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession". ( 4 ) SRI Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by both the Courts below and would maintain that the very approach adopted by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court cannot be sustained for the reason that the Courts had proceeded on the ground that the suit had been instituted on the strength of ex. A4. The counsel would maintain that Ex. A4 is only a document just evidencing the mortgage transaction, but the suit as such is not based on the strength of ex. A4. The learned counsel also pointed out that on certain minor discrepancies, both the Courts disbelieved Ex. A4. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the contents of Ex. A4 and also the other oral and documentary evidence available on record and would maintain that this is a suit, which was based on an oral mortgage which had been further evidenced by Ex. A4 transaction; hence the findings recorded by both the Courts cannot be sustained. While elaborating his submissions further the counsel also pointed out that the findings recorded in relation to the suit for injunction also cannot be sustained. A4 transaction; hence the findings recorded by both the Courts cannot be sustained. While elaborating his submissions further the counsel also pointed out that the findings recorded in relation to the suit for injunction also cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through Section 47 of a. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and would point out that on the strength of the unregistered sale transaction-Ex. B1, the reliefs prayed for by the appellants cannot be negatived. The learned counsel also pointed out to the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 and DWs. 1 and 2 and also the documentary evidence Exs. A1 to A4 (a) and Exs. B1 to B35 in this regard. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri B. N. Swamiji, learned counsel representing respondent would contend that Ex. A4 transaction was not proved in accordance with law and the discrepancies even in the oral evidence had been clearly pointed out by both the courts and concurrent findings had been recorded and predominantly this being a question of fact, normally such concurrent findings not to be disturbed in a second Appeal. The learned counsel also would maintain that even if the sale transaction Ex. B1 to be held to be invalid, from the date of sale transaction ex. B1 the respondent-defendant had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for a period of about more than 20 years and even in this view of the matter, negativing of the reliefs of redemption and recovery of possession prayed for by the appellants-plaintiffs would be just and proper since such parties praying for such positive reliefs may have to succeed on their own strength and they cannot rely upon the weakness of the opposite parties. The counsel also had pointed out to the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 and further had specifically pointed to Ex. B2 (a), the signature of C. Malla Reddy on ex. B1 and further pointed out to Exs. B3 to B31, the land revenue receipts and also had referred to Exs. B32 and B33, the notices, Ex. B34 , the receipt given by tahsildar under R. O. R. , and Ex. B35 the certified copy of the decree in OS No. 27 of 1983. B1 and further pointed out to Exs. B3 to B31, the land revenue receipts and also had referred to Exs. B32 and B33, the notices, Ex. B34 , the receipt given by tahsildar under R. O. R. , and Ex. B35 the certified copy of the decree in OS No. 27 of 1983. Ultimately the learned counsel concluded that even if the substantial questions of law raised by the counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs to be taken as substantial questions of law, it is not a case to disturb the concurrent findings since the appellants-plaintiffs had been non-suited after recording just and proper reasons. ( 6 ) HEARD the counsel on record and perused the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 7 ) THE substantial questions of law which had been framed by this Court and pointed out by the learned counsel representing the appellants already had been specified supra. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as shown in OS No. 44 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif at Bhongir, for the purpose of convenience. ( 8 ) THE appellants-plaintiffs instituted the suit for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession of the land in S. No. 78/e EE to an extent of 6 acres 30 guntas at Bommaipalli village, Bhongir Taluq and also for recovery of mesne profits. The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint as hereunder: "plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 are legal heirs of Katkuri Pedda Rajaiah, the owner and pattedar of suit land 78/e who died intestate on 8. 12. 1983 at Bommaipally village, Tq. Bhongir. The plaintiff No. 6 is the owner and pattedar of suit land s. No. 78/ee. Both Pedda and Chinna Rajaiah jointly mortgaged the suit land to defendant, hence they are mortgagors and defendant is the mortgagee of suit land s. No. 78/e, 78/ee to the extent of 6 acres 30 guntas. Since plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of mortgagtor Pedda Rajaiah, after his death, they are entitled to seek relief. Both Pedda and Chinna Rajaiah jointly mortgaged the suit land to defendant, hence they are mortgagors and defendant is the mortgagee of suit land s. No. 78/e, 78/ee to the extent of 6 acres 30 guntas. Since plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of mortgagtor Pedda Rajaiah, after his death, they are entitled to seek relief. It is further alleged that the plaintiff No. 6 and his elder brother Pedda Rajaiah originally leased out the suit lands to the defendant in the year 1963 on a Batai basis orally and in pursuance thereof he was inducted into possession of the suit lands. Accordingly the defendant was occupying the suit land as a tenant. While so, one year thereafter the plaintiffs' lessors were in bad need of money for their excise contract and they requested the defendant to advance a loan on the security of leasehold lands, and the defendant promised to advance loan of Rs. 1,000/- and accordingly he advanced the loan to the said lessors and they executed a mortgage agreement on 16. 4. 1964 in favour of defendant incorporating the terms and conditions for repayment of loan and also period of mortgage. The defendant also in turn executed an agreement on 16. 4. 1964 in favour of mortgagors. As per the said mortgage deed, the defendant were to enjoy the mortgage property for a period of 10 years from the date of execution, which expired on 16. 4. 1974. Even after the expiry of 10 years mortgage period, the defendant continued to possess the suit land as the amount borrowed from the defendant could not be adjusted in the profits secured by the defendant. It is further alleged that even expiry of the period of more than 19 years, the entire loan amount taken by the mortgagors shall be deemed to have been adjusted and discharged and the property mortgaged should have been returned to the mortgagors. But the defendant with collusion of the Patwari and the office of the Record of Rights seem to be managed to get his name entered in the Record of Rights in Form No. 1 against the suit lands showing him to be the owner and landholder. But the defendant with collusion of the Patwari and the office of the Record of Rights seem to be managed to get his name entered in the Record of Rights in Form No. 1 against the suit lands showing him to be the owner and landholder. Since the plaintiff No. 6 and his brother are illiterate and since no notice was served upon them by the R. O. R. officials while holding enquiry and even Patwari of the village did not disclose this fact to them having come under the influence of the defendant, as such, they could not submit their objection, petitioner challenging the validity of the wrong entries made in R. O. R. statement in Col. No. 9 at the preliminary stage itself. However, these wrong entries were made on the basis of the forged and fabricated document of sale purported to have been executed on 16. 4. 1964 by the mortgagors. Accordingly, they filed a regular case for rectification of wrong entries in Tahsil Office, Bhongir, in the month of August, 1980, which is pending enquiry and they never sold the suit lands to the defendant by executing any document or sale document purported to have been executed on 16. 4. 1964. The defendant being a mortgagee with possession of the suit land cannot claim ownership rights document created by him. As a matter of fact, no registered sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant at any time transferring ownership rights. Hence the possession of the defendant over the suit lands is that of mortgage and not the owner, as falsely claimed by him in OS No. 27/1988. Since the mortgage period expired in the month of April, 1974, itself, but the loan amount would not be adjusted fully and he continued to be in possession as a mortgagee. Now the entire loan amount shall be deemed to have been adjusted and the defendant shall be liable to deliver possession of the suit lands to the plaintiffs and also to pay the surplus profits. They also asked the defendant in the last week of July, 1980 as to how his name was got incorporated as a landholder relating to the mortgaged suit lands, but he could not give satisfactory reply. They also asked the defendant in the last week of July, 1980 as to how his name was got incorporated as a landholder relating to the mortgaged suit lands, but he could not give satisfactory reply. It is also alleged that being the owners they mortgaged the suit property to Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Bommaipally and obtained loan from the said Society for their agricultural operations. In this way they have exercised their right of ownership over the suit lands by creating charge thereon for development of agriculture and the defendant intentionally avoiding to return back the suit lands. As such, the matter was referred to elders after dasara festival of 1984 for amicable settlement, but the defendant has not heed their advice. It is further alleged that the original mortgage deed dated 16. 4. 1984 executed by mortgagors in favour of defendants must be in possession of defendant himself. If the suit lands are leased out for seasonal cultivation, it may fetch average of Rs. 500/- per annum and as defendant has been enjoying and occupying the suit lands for the past 9 years after the expiry of mortgage passed, he shall be deemed to have gained Rs. 4,500/- profit and if the mortgage amount of Rs. 1,000/- is deducted, the balance would be Rs. 3,500/- and the defendant did not spend any amount on the development of suit lands. Hence, the suit is filed for redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession and also for mesne profits of Rs. 3,500/-". ( 9 ) THE defendant resisted the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs by filing a written statement in detail with the following averments: "late Katkuri Pedda Rajaiah and plaintiff No. 6 are not the owners and hold any right in the said lands more than 21 years as they sold 6 acres 30 guntas of land in these two survey numbers under a sale deed executed by them on Re. 1/- stamp paper on Suddha Panchami of Ashadha in Shobhakruthu year corresponding to the year 1963 in his favour. 1/- stamp paper on Suddha Panchami of Ashadha in Shobhakruthu year corresponding to the year 1963 in his favour. In fact the rights of the said two brothers were extinguished more than 21 years ago and thus the legal heirs of late Pedda rajaiah, plaintiffs 1 to 5 herein, and the plaintiff No. 6 have nothing to do with the same and the patta standing in their name in respect of the said lands is nominal and no way it affects his rights. It is denied that Pedda Rajaiah and plaintiff No. 6 mortgaged the suit lands to him and also denied that late pedda Rajaiah and plaintiff No. 6 mortgaged the suit lands to him and also denied that late Pedda Rajaiah and plaintiff No. 6 originally leased the suit land to him in the year 1968 on the Batai basis orally and in pursuance thereof, he was inducted into possession of the said land and he was occupying the suit land as tenant, and also denied that the plaintiffs mortgaged for the need of money for their excise contract, and he advanced Rs. 1,000/-to them and they executed a mortgage Agreement on 16. 4. 1964 in his favour, and even any such document, it is forged and manipulated and not binding on him. It is further alleged that he purchased the suit lands for valid consideration of Rs. 1,407/- at the rate of rs. 210/- per acre. As such the question of expiry of the period does not arise and he is in possession of the suit land as absolute owner by paying land revenue and his name has been rightly entered in the Record of Rights as the owner, possessor and landholder. It is denied that plaintiffs are illiterate and no notices were served on them by Record of Rights officials at the time of enquiry and he colluded with the Patwari and got written his name. But it is admitted that plaintiff No. 6 and his elder brother filed a petition before tahsildar for rectification of so-called wrong entries, but it is dismissed in default, and denied the said petition is pending. It is further alleged that plaintiff No. 6 and Pedda Rajaiah received valid sale consideration and executed a sale deed in July, 1963, which is binding on them, and he is in possession of the suit lands as purchaser. It is further alleged that plaintiff No. 6 and Pedda Rajaiah received valid sale consideration and executed a sale deed in July, 1963, which is binding on them, and he is in possession of the suit lands as purchaser. Since late Pedda Rajaiah, his sons plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein, plaintiff No. 6 and his sons Bikshapathi, Rama Swamy, Mallaiah and dasaratha started interfering with his possession over the suit land, he filed a suit OS No. 27/1983 for perpetual injunction against them and it was decreed and at one stage Mr. M. A. Akhil, Advocate filed Vakalat for some of the defendants and the decree operates as resjudicata against the plaintiff since they are made parties as defendants in that suit. As such, the present suit is not maintainable. Since there was no relationship of mortgagors and mortgagee between them, it is denied and allegation that since the mortgage period expired in April, 1974, the loan amount would not be adjusted fully, so he continued to be in possession as a mortgagee, and now the entire loan amount shall be deemed to have been adjusted and he shall be liable to deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and also to pay the mesne profits. It is further alleged as the plaintiffs have ceased to own the suit land, the6y cannot mortgage the suit property to Cooperative Society, Bommaipalli and denied that the matter is referred by the plaintiffs to the elders for amicable settlement for which he refused to hand over the possessionof the suit lands, and also denied that he is liable to pay Rs. 3,500/- as mesne profits after adjustment of the loan of rs. 1,000/ -. Further alleged that he spent Rs. 20,000/- towards developing the suit lands as he has covered 2 acres of land into wet by laying underground cement pipes to bail out water from the nearby stream, and he leveled the suit land and he has grown a number of trees and they are growing vegetables therein, and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and also alleged that the suit is barred by limitation under provisions of 61 (a) of Indian limitation Act. Further, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. It is further alleged that Pedda Rajaiah and plaintiff No. 6 filed an application on 10. 3. Further, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. It is further alleged that Pedda Rajaiah and plaintiff No. 6 filed an application on 10. 3. 1983 before the Tahsildar, Bhongir under the provisions of A. P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, and the Rules made thereunder seeking delivery of the suit land and he was served with notice in case no. B/6/1170/83, dated 22. 4. 1983 and with another notice dated 7. 4. 1983 under the provisions of the said Act. It is further submitted that he entered his appearance through his counsel G. Satyanarayana in those proceedings before the tahsildar and before he submitted any reply, that application was dismissed in default. As such, the same relief in the present suits is not tenable as the application filed by the plaintiffs before proper Forum is rejected. It is also alleged that this Court has no jurisdiction in view of A. P. Agricultural indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs". ( 10 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance settled the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession as prayed? 2. Whether late Pedda Rajaiah and the plaintiff No. 6 have jointly mortgaged the suit lands in favour of the defendant as alleged by the plaintiffs? 3. Whether Pedda Rajaiah, father of plaintiffs 1 to 5, and plaintiff No. 6 sold the suit lands in favour of the defendant as alleged in the written statement? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged? 5. Whether the decree passed in OS No. 27/1983 operates as resjudicata as alleged in the written statement? ( 11 ) ON behalf of plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 (a) were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 to B33 were marked. ( 12 ) THE Court of first instance recorded reasons in detail and arrived at a conclusion that in the light of the discrepancies in the oral evidence, Ex. A4 cannot be believed as the same is a fabricated document and further observed that on the strength of such unregistered document, the relief of redemption cannot be granted, and also further relied upon Ex. B1 and Exs. A4 cannot be believed as the same is a fabricated document and further observed that on the strength of such unregistered document, the relief of redemption cannot be granted, and also further relied upon Ex. B1 and Exs. B3 to B35 and appreciated the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case and ultimately dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal AS No. 3 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, and the appellate Court at paragraph 6 framed the following point for consideration: "whether the lower Court erred in dismissing the suit that the plaintiffs have no right for redemption and recovery of the suit schedule properties holding that the defendant was the owner and in possession of the suit lands". The appellate Court proceeded to discuss the point commencing from paragraphs 7 to 10 and ultimately dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of first instance, but without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred. ( 13 ) THE appellate Court in relation to the judgment in OS No. 27 of 1983, the certified copy of the decree marked as Ex. B35, discussed all the aspects in detail and observed that the defendant filed the suit OS No. 27 of 1983 in respect of the self-same property against the plaintiffs and obtained perpetual injunction and the contention advanced that inasmuch as the same is an ex parte decree it won't operate as resjudicata cannot be accepted for the reason that the plaintiffs made their appearance through their counsel and thereafter they were set ex parte and though they had knowledge about the filing of the suit, they had not chosen to contest the matter and hence it would operate as resjudicata. In the light of the findings recorded in detail, both by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court, the said findings in relation thereto need not be disturbed. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, the principal question argued in elaboration is in relation to the oral mortgage, which is well supported by Ex. A4 transaction and also in relation to the substantial question of law on the strength of which the Second appeal was admitted by this Court, viz. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, the principal question argued in elaboration is in relation to the oral mortgage, which is well supported by Ex. A4 transaction and also in relation to the substantial question of law on the strength of which the Second appeal was admitted by this Court, viz. , the absence of permission from the tahsildar under Section 47 of A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950. It is in relation to Ex. B1. The evidence of PW. 1 and also pws. 2 to 5 had been appreciated in elaboration. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of pahani for 1964-65; Ex. A2 is also the certified copy of pahani for 1964-65; ex. A3 is the sketch map; Ex. A4 is the original agreement dated 16. 4. 1964 said to have been executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and Ex. A4 (a) is the signature of Chinna Malla Reddy on Ex. A4. As against this evidence, the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 is available on record. Ex. B1 is the original sale deed dated 12. 8. 1963. ( 15 ) SUBMISSIONS at length were made by the counsel representing the appellants relating to the validity of Ex. B1. It is an unregistered sale deed. Further, it is stated that no permission as required under Section 47 of A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 had been obtained and hence Ex. B1 is an invalid transaction. Positive findings had been recorded relating to the genuineness of Ex. B1. Ex. B2 (a) is the signature of Chinna Malla Reddy. Apart from this aspect of the matter, Exs. B1 to B31 would go to show that from 12. 8. 1963, the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is needless to say that this aspect is not in serious controversy since the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs are for redemption of mortgage and also for recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. Exs. B32 and B33 are notices. Ex. B34 is the receipt issued by the Tahsildar under R. O. R. ( 16 ) AS far as the decree in OS No. 27 of 1983 and whether the same operates as resjudicata, these aspects are concerned, they had already been discussed supra. In the light of the evidence of DWs. Exs. B32 and B33 are notices. Ex. B34 is the receipt issued by the Tahsildar under R. O. R. ( 16 ) AS far as the decree in OS No. 27 of 1983 and whether the same operates as resjudicata, these aspects are concerned, they had already been discussed supra. In the light of the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 and the voluminous documentary evidence placed, the continuous possession of the defendant over the plaint schedule property from the date of the alleged invalid sale transaction Ex. B1 dated 12. 8. 1963 cannot be put into any serious controversy. This Court is of the considered opinion that the question whether Ex. B1 is valid or invalid need not detain this Court any longer for the reason that the plaintiffs approached the Court praying for positive reliefs. The alleged mortgage transaction, the usufructory mortgage, coupled with delivery of possession is not evidenced by any registered document whatsoever. Submissions at length were made that on the strength of oral mortgage since there is no bar in law, the suit had been instituted. Further submissions were made that Ex. A4 transaction is only a piece of supporting evidence, in which the mortgage transaction had been referred to. Ex. A4, the oral evidence available in relation thereto and the discrepancies in the oral evidence had been pointed out by both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and the same had been disbelieved. Hence, irrespective of the fact whether Ex. B1 is valid or not since both the courts recorded positive findings that the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish their case, they are to be non-suited, this Court is of the considered opinion, especially in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Courts below in this Second Appeal. Hence, it is needless to say that the Second Appeal being devoid of merit. ( 17 ) IN the result, the Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.