JUDGMENT : A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J. Since all these appeals are arising out of Common Judgment and decree dated 31.12.2015 in O.S.No.821 of 2010, O.S.No.264 & 265 of 2012 passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 2. Originally, the appellants/plaintiffs filed OS No.821 of 2010 under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein against 36 defendants, O.S.No.264 of 2012 is filed by respondents 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 & 19 herein and O.S.No.265 of 2012 is filed by respondents 3 to 7, 15, 16 & 36 herein under order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the respective schedules. 3. A.S.No.610 of 2016 is filed by the appellants against dismissal of suits in judgment and decree in OS No.821 of 2010, A.S.No.530 of 2016 is filed against judgment and decree in OS No.264 of 2012 and A.S.No.539 of 2016 is filed against judgment and decree in OS NO.265 of 2012 dated 31.12.2015, allowing the suits. 4. During pendency of the appeal, the 2nd appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as per the orders dated 29.04.2021 in I.A.Nos.1 of 2019 in A.S.Nos.610, 530 & 539 of 2016 as appellants 10 & 11. Likewise, 2nd respondent died and his legal representative was brought on record as respondent No.37 as per the orders of this Court dated 08.03.2017 in AS MP No.423 of 2017. 5. Since the parties and the schedule properties are one and the same in all these appeals, and the A.S.No.610 of 2016 being the comprehensive appeal arising out of OS No.821 of 2010, for the sake of convenience, facts and the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in OS No.821 of 2010 for disposal of these appeals. 6. Originally the suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 5 against 35 defendants. During the pendency of suit consequent to the death of the 5th plaintiff, his legal heirs, who are his wife and children joined as the plaintiffs 6 to 9. The defendant No. 36 was added consequent to the death of the defendant No.3 Mr. P. Mallikarjuna Rao. Originally the suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 5 against 35 defendants. During the pendency of suit consequent to the death of the 5th plaintiff, his legal heirs, who are his wife and children joined as the plaintiffs 6 to 9. The defendant No. 36 was added consequent to the death of the defendant No.3 Mr. P. Mallikarjuna Rao. Brief facts, which are germane for disposal of these appeals are as follows: 7. The 1stplaintiff is the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, who claims to be the actual owner and possessor of plaint "A" schedule property admeasuring Acs.5.02 guntas and the 5th plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of plaint "B" schedule property admeasuring Acs.8.35 guntas, respectively total admeasuring Acs.10.02 guntas, in Sy.Nos.279 and 284, situated at Puppalguda village, Rajendernagar Mandal (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘subject property’)and that out of a total extent of Ac.10-02 guntas in S.No.279, an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas is acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the formation of outer ring road project and the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been in the deposit of OP Nos.1197/2007 ad 1203/2007 on the file of I and II Additional DistrictCourts, Ranga Reddy District. 8. The entire land in Sy.No. 279, 281 to 287 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R District totally admeasuring Ac.85.21 guntas constituted the private estate of the erstwhile Hyderabad State namely Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung and those lands are being cultivated since generations by Scheduled Caste peasants of which the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 5 were among them and that the respective fathers of the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 have cultivated those lands along with other cultivators as tenants and after their demise, the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 continued to be in possession and that their names were mutated in the revenue records by recognizing their possession and that the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 being the sons of plaintiff No.1 also peacefully holding the possession of plaint "A" schedule property. The names of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 5 along with other Schedule Caste peasants were recorded as cultivators and possessors in respect of plaint "A" & "B" schedule property in the Sethwar, Faisal patties, Jamabandi records, Wasulbaqui Register, KhasraPahani and Seshalapahani, which are the authentic revenue records in Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh State. 9. The names of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 5 along with other Schedule Caste peasants were recorded as cultivators and possessors in respect of plaint "A" & "B" schedule property in the Sethwar, Faisal patties, Jamabandi records, Wasulbaqui Register, KhasraPahani and Seshalapahani, which are the authentic revenue records in Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh State. 9. Consequent to the migration of Nawab Fakeer Yar Jung to Pakistan during separation of India and Pakistan, his entire estate including the suit schedule properties were declared as Evacuee property under the Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act of 1950’) and the plaintiffs 1 and 5 continued to be in possession along with other peasants/tenants in respect of plaint “A and B” schedule properties, even though the property was declared as Evacuee property. Since the date of such declaration, the revenue authorities did not resume the possession of the entire land or any part of it and the possession of the plaintiffs herein and the other Scheduled Caste peasants is continuing as contemplated under subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act of 1950. After such declaration, the Ministry of Rehabilitation of Government of India issued instructions to the District Collectors to transfer the Evacuee land to the long standing cultivating possessors on payment of Rs.450/- per standard acre and most of the occupants of the said land got the property transferred in their names and that the plaintiffs being ignorant of such orders could not make an application, but on 20-05-1988 on knowing about such demand, the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for implementation of ROR in respect of land in Sy.No.279 Puppalguda village, but in spite of receiving such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer has not passed any orders, but the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties since generations. 10. The 1st defendant being the custodian of revenue records had never resumed the evacuee land and was never in possession of the same, thereby the said property never vested with the State and the unilateral self-serving revenue entries do not defeat the interest of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs’ possession is required to be regularized by granting pattas as per Revenue Board Standing order No.15. 11. While things stood thus, during 2000-01 when the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the property, the 3rd defendant-Mr. 11. While things stood thus, during 2000-01 when the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the property, the 3rd defendant-Mr. P. Mallikarjuna Rao claiming to be the General Power of Attorney of the 2nd defendant-Mr.Ravinder Kumar Balwani stated that the 2nd defendant is displaced Sindhi person and was allotted land including the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties by the custodian of evacuee properties Bombay vide allotment order No. HYD/53/9999, dated 16-09-1967 and HYD/53-A/11005, dated 7-10-1967. 12. The 2nd defendant never appeared in the suit schedule property or before anybody and that nobody seen him with blood and flesh and that the allotment orders are fake and fabricated being created by the 3rd defendant and his family members, who are the defendants Nos. 4 to 14 and that the 2nd defendant is a non existing person and the version that he is a displaced Sindhi person is a created one in order to grab the plaint "A” and “B” schedule properties with the help of fabricated allotment orders, based on which the 3rd defendant created a General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by 2nd defendant on 14-12-1966 and presented it for registration in the office of Sub Registrar, Mumbai as a document bearing No.1120/1966 and that the said General Power of Attorney is a fake document and does not bear the Certificate of Registration as mandated under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai vide his letter dated 07.06.2006 confirmed that the said GPA is indeed not registered in the registration records, as alleged by the 3rd respondent and that the same is not according to Indian Registration Act. The 3rd defendant is an incompetent person to represent the 2nd defendant and that the contention of the 3rd defendant that it is an authenticated document as required under sec. 32 and 33 of Indian Registration Act is totally a different concept. The 3rd defendant by using the fake General Power of Attorney filed a claim under Sec. 8 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act of 1972’) and the said claim was dismissed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West vide its Orders dated 03-12-1976 and by suppressing the above dismissal orders, the 3rd defendant, who was hand in glove with some of the revenue officials and one Mr. K. Swaminathan, IAS, who was then officiating as the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who retired as Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State issued fake proceedings bearing No. CCLA's proceedings No.SEP/138/82, dt.3-07-2001, wherein Mr. K. Swaminathan, IAS made a false statement that the 2nd defendant was handed over with possession of the evacuee land and carried out the mutation in his name and declared that those lands are alienable in the hands of his GPA holder i.e., the 3rd defendant. The said Swaminathan, IAS was officiating as an Authority under Act of 1972, is aware that a single individual cannot hold more than 5 acres of land within the peripheral area of the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad City and the said IAS officer has apparently abused his office by passing an illegal order of handing over Ac.85-21 gts of land to a single individual against law. The 2nd defendant, represented by his GPA holder-3rd respondent has instituted L.G.C.No. 24/2001 on the file of Special Court against the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 by claiming title and recovery of possession in respect of plaint "A" schedule property by referring fake documents dated 16-09-1967, 7-10-1967 and the GPA Dt. 14-12-1966 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar filed a statutory report dated 28-12-2001 stating that the allotment orders are suspicious and were under scrutiny by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide letter bearing No. LP1/401/98, dt.8-01-2001 and basing on the letter of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the LGC was dismissed on 19-04-2002. 13. By disbelieving the documents filed by the 3rd respondent, the Special Court found that those are suspicious and further held that the plaintiffs herein, who are the respondents therein are in peaceful possession in respect of plaint "A" schedule property and by suppressing the above dismissal of LGC No. 24/2001, the 3rd defendant in the capacity of the GPA holder of 2nd defendant instituted a suit for perpetual injunction vide OS No. 854/2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, West and South, Ranga Reddy District against the plaintiffs herein and during the pendency of that suit, the 3rd defendant alienated the property by way of registered sale deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 13, who are none other than his wife, mother, brother, daughters, sons-in law and other relatives and the IA No.2241/2002 in the above suit was dismissed on 03-12-2002 by observing that the plaintiffs herein, who are the defendants therein are found to be in possession and the CMA No.185 of 2002 on the file of District Judge, R.R.District preferred by the 3rd defendant was also dismissed and thereafter, the suit OS No.854 of 2002 was dismissed on 18-11-2003 as withdrawn. The defendant Nos.4 to 13 by suppressing the dismissal of LGC No.24/2001 and OS No.854/2002, created another set of documents of allotment orders which did not contain the seals of the Court, in which those were earlier filed and with the help of fabricated documents filed OS No. 875/2003, 877/2003 and 805/2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District. 14. The defendants instituted proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Records of Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’) and got the names of the plaintiffs deleted from the revenue records by manipulating the records pertaining to plaint "A & B” schedule properties and falsely obtained pattedar pass books and title deeds and the revenue authorities illegally issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in violation of the instructions of the 1st defendant vide proceedings bearing No.LP 1/401/98, dated 08-01-2001 and mere issuance of pattedar pass books and title deeds by conducting superficial enquiry without examining the validity of the documents of the defendants will not extinguish the title of the rightful owners, as the same cannot be equated to judicial proceedings. 15. The defendants 4 to 13 have no title and possession as the transaction in their favour is during the pendency of OS No.854/2002 and that the GPA under which the defendant No.3 claims to have sold from the 2nd defendant is to be strictly proved under sec. 67 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiffs in OS NO.805 of 2003, 877 of 2003 (New O.S.Nos.264/2012 and 265/2012) and OS No. 875/2003 were granted injunction in the interim applications and such orders were confirmed by the District Court and the defendants Nos.4 to 13 have sold the plaint “A and B” schedule properties to the defendant Nos. 14 to 35 without there being any title to them and that even though the defendant Nos. 14 to 35 without there being any title to them and that even though the defendant Nos. 4 to 35 purchased the property, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession. After the repeal of the Evacuee Properties Act in the year, 2005, the 1st defendant has no claim of any nature whatsoever over the entire “A” schedule land and the claim over “B” and “C” schedule land which have been confirmed in LGC No.24/2001 on 19.04.2002, which constitutes a “Judgment in REM” as per the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act), 1982 (for short ‘the Act of 1982’). The plaintiffs 1 and 5 being the genuine cultivators and possessors of the suit schedule properties are entitled for declaration of title by applying the Revenue Board Standing Order No.15 and as per GO Ms. No.1883/Rev, Dt.09-12-1964 and the administrative directions bearing CSS and LR’s No.EP3/391/82, dt.27-08-1982, Circular No.V issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records under which, the District Collectors in the State of Andhra Pradesh were issued Instructions to ensure that in the event of any conflict between allottees of the Evacuee Properties and long standing possessors/cultivators, who have acquired the status of protected tenants or ordinary tenants, the interest of the cultivator to claim Evacuee property should prevail. As the defendant No.1 issued a letter vide proceedings No.SEP/138/82,dt. 03-07-2001 with a false statement that the schedule agricultural lands were handed over to the 2nd defendant and basing on the above proceedings, the defendants No.4 to 13 have made unlawful transfer during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the suit is filed for declaration title of the plaintiffs by way of prescription by adverse possession and to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the property and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per acre towards mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of recovery. 16. The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint filed in support of the suit and specifically denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in respect of an extent of Ac.5.02 guntas in S.No.279 and that of the 5thplaintiff in respect of an extent of Ac.8.35 guntas in S.No.284 of Puppalaguda Village but admitted the acquisition of Ac.5.00 guntas of land in S.No. 279 out of the total extent of Ac.10.02 guntas in the project of outer ring road. Neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors along with scheduled caste peasants cultivated the suit schedule properties and they have entered their names in the revenue records by fabricating the documents. After the migration of Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung to Pakistan during partition, his estate in S.Nos.279,281 to 287 totally admeasuring Ac.85.21 guntas in PuppalgudaVillage, Rajendernagar Mandal was declared as evacuee property U/s. 7 of the Act of 1950 and later the lands were acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation &Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and those lands vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and formed part of compensation pool under the said Act and denied the contention that the schedule caste peasants including the plaintiffs remained in possession of property in the manner contemplated U/s 8(4) of Act of 1950 and contends that the orders issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India and the instructions from the Collectors to transfer the evacuee land in favour of long standing possessors on payment of Rs.450/- for standard acre has no application to the suit schedule lands as the lands were acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation &Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. He contends that the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, vide allotment orders bearing No. HYD/53/9999, dated 16-9-1967 and HYD/53-A/11005 dated 07-10-1967 allotted Ac.69.36guntas and Ac.15.25 guntas in Sy.Nos. 279,281, 283 to 287 and 282, respectively in favour of the 2nd defendant represented by his General Power of Attorney holder-3rd defendant, who is authorized under an authenticated GPA bearing document No.1120/1966 dated 14-12-1966 with a power to apply to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay to receive the allotment orders, take possession of the lands etc., and that the allotment orders attained finality as those remained unchallenged on any ground and that the GPA holder of the 2nd defendant took possession of the property and dealt with the lands on his behalf as per the power conferred on him. The representation made by the 1stplaintiff for the allotment of the land in S.No.279 was rejected by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on the ground that the said land has already been allotted to this defendant by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour Employment & Rehabilitation. 17. He denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the letter bearing No.CCLA proceedings No.SEP/138/82, Dt.3-7-2001 issued by Mr. 17. He denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the letter bearing No.CCLA proceedings No.SEP/138/82, Dt.3-7-2001 issued by Mr. K. Swaminathan, IAS stating that the possession of the land was handed over to this defendant by the then Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad as a fake document. That LGC 24/2001 filed basing on fake documents and the report of MRO, Rajendernagar filed in LGC 24/2001 stating that the allotment orders were spurious and were under scrutiny by the District Collector is false and incorrect. The District Collector RR District filed his counter affidavit in W.P.No. 25603/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that the evacuee land admeasuring Ac.85.21 guntas in S.Nos. 279, 281 to 287 of Puppalguda village was allotted to this defendant under two allotment orders and the possession was also delivered to this defendant. He denied the contention of the plaintiffs that there are several sets of created and manipulated allotment orders and that the plaintiffs are entitled to get their possession regularized by grant of patta as per the provisions contained in Revenue Board standing Order No.15 and 26. The allegation of the plaintiffs that this defendant is a fictitious person is denied and contends that he is a retired Government servant from the State of Maharashtra, settled down at Mumbai and holding a valid passport bearing No.G5539132 issued by the Government of India and receiving pension for the past more than 25 years. After demise of 3rd defendant, this defendant executed GPA in favour of 8th defendant vide document No.722 of 2010, dated 20.01.2010 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Andheri, Mumbai. He further contends that the LGC SR.No.1468 of 2007 is filed before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 by the counsel for the plaintiffs herein in his independent capacity, which was dismissed by the Special Court vide orders dated 07.11.2007 holding that the possession of this defendant is traceable to allotment orders made by the competent authorities. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.2882 of 2008 filed before this Court, which was also dismissed on 19.02.2008 and Review Petition WPMP No.11933 of 2008 was also dismissed on 11.07.2008. Against the said orders, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC NO.15720 of 2008 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed on 05.12.2008. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.2882 of 2008 filed before this Court, which was also dismissed on 19.02.2008 and Review Petition WPMP No.11933 of 2008 was also dismissed on 11.07.2008. Against the said orders, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC NO.15720 of 2008 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed on 05.12.2008. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed LGC SR.No. 1345/2009 with similar reliefs, which was also rejected by the Special Court by judgment dated 26.04.2010 holding that this defendant and the purchasers are the lawful owners of the property by virtue of allotment orders and they cannot be termed as land grabbers. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed WP No.31967 of 2010 before this Court. Even though the judgments in LGC SR 1468 of 2007 and LGC SR No.1345 of 2009 operates as res judicata, the present suit is filed by abusing process of law and sought for dismissal of the suit. 18. Written statement is filed by the 5th defendant reiterating the averments of the 2nd defendant stating that she purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas in S.No.279 under a registered document bearing No.6229/2002 Dt. 14-11-2002 of the Sub Registrar Office, Rajendernagar and her name was mutated in the revenue records under proceedings No.B/4680/2002, Dt.19-4-2003 and accordingly pattedar passbooks and title deeds were also issued. In the suit filed by this defendant for injunction vide OS.No.877/2003 (re numbered as OS No. 265/2012), the possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners therein was confirmed at the interlocutory stage up to the Honorable High Court and thereafter the property was alienated by her and others to third parties and the purchasers got themselves impleaded in the suit and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. 19. The defendants 8 and 10 filed written statements reiterating the averments of the written statements filed by the defendants 2 and 5 in all the aspects and nothing more than that. The written statements of the defendant Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19 are identical with that of the defendant No.2 and 5 in all the aspects and in addition to that it is stated that Smt. 5th defendant-Dr. P. Mamatha purchased an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas in S.No.279 under a registered document No.6229/2002 Dt. The written statements of the defendant Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19 are identical with that of the defendant No.2 and 5 in all the aspects and in addition to that it is stated that Smt. 5th defendant-Dr. P. Mamatha purchased an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas in S.No.279 under a registered document No.6229/2002 Dt. 14-11-2002 from the defendant No.2 and she in turn sold it to the defendant No.16, Manerick Promoters (P) Ltd., under a registered document bearing No.13537/2005 Dt. 22-8-2005. That Dr. Pushpa Leelavathi and Siva Kumar (defendants Nos. 4 and 6) purchased an extent of Ac.2.22 guntas in S.No.279 from the defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed No.10120/2002 Dt. 20-11-2002 and they in turn sold an extent of Ac.1.12 guntas to M/s. Vistas Constructions Pvt. Ltd., (D17) under a registered sale deed bearing No.13157/2005, dated 14-12-2005 and Ac.1.10 guntas to the defendant No.15, Mr. G. Devender Rao under a registered sale deed No.13156/2005 dated 14-12-2005.In turn M/s. Vistas Constructions Pvt Ltd., (D17) sold the property to M/s.Manerick Promoters (D16) and accordingly the defendant No.16 in total and became the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.3.32 guntas and the defendant No.15 became the absolute owner and possessor of Ac. 1.10 guntas in S.No.279. 20. The defendant No.10 purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas and Ac. 1.10 guntas of land under registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 10121/2002 dated 20-11-2002 and 10686/2002 dated 5-12-2002 respectively from the 2nd defendant, who in turn executed an agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of Mr. G. Ravinder Rao in respect of Acs.1.30guntas and Ac.1.10 guntas vide registered documents bearing Nos.5584/2005 dated 28-5-2005 and 5585/2005 dated 28-5-2005 and also executed a document bearing No.7722/2005 dated 22-7-2005 for an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas. The said G. Ravinder Rao on the strength of AGPA bearing No.5584/2005 dated 28-5-2005 got a sale deed executed in his favour vide document bearing No.6322/2006 dated 17-3-2006 and executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.19 on the strength of AGPA bearing document No.5585/2005 dated 28-5-2005 for an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas vide document bearing No.6323/2006 dated 17-3-2006. The defendant No.18 in turn sold Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.0.10 guntas to the defendant Nos.15 and 19 under registered documents bearing No.19806/2005 dated 14-12-2005 and document bearing No.8022/2006 Dt.1-4-2006, respectively. 21. The defendant No.18 in turn sold Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.0.10 guntas to the defendant Nos.15 and 19 under registered documents bearing No.19806/2005 dated 14-12-2005 and document bearing No.8022/2006 Dt.1-4-2006, respectively. 21. That the 11th defendant purchased an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas from the defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed bearing No.6230/2002 dated 14-11-2002 and in turn he sold it to the 10thdefendant under a registered sale deed bearing No.4627/2003 dated 07-07-2003 and the defendant No.10 in turn executed a registered AGPA bearing document No.7723/2005 dated 22-7-2005 in favour of defendant No.18 for the said extent and the defendant No.18 on the strength of the AGPA obtained a sale deed in his name under registered sale deed bearing No.8023/2006 Dt.1-4-2006. Accordingly, the defendants No.15, 16, 18 and 19 became the rightful owners and possessors of the extents of Ac.1.30 guntas, Ac.3.32 guntas, Ac. 1.20 guntas and Ac.1.10 guntas respectively and Mr. G. Ravinder Rao became the rightful owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas in S.No.279. In pursuance of the above transactions the names of the defendants 15, 16, 18 and 19 and Mr. G.Ravinder Rao were mutated in the revenue records under ROR Act and they were issued pattedar passbooks for an extent of Ac.10.02 guntas in S.No. 279 and out of that an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas was affected in ORR project and the above defendants and Mr. G. Ravinder Rao constructed few rooms and a compound wall around the rest of the land and in S.No.279, which is the plaint "A" schedule property by obtaining permission from Puppalguda Gram Panchayath vide permission bearing No.50/2008 dated 29-9-2008 and they also obtained electricity connection and thereby the defendants 15,16,18, 19 and Mr. Ravinder Rao are in effective possession and enjoyment of Plaint "A" schedule property by paying property tax to the Gram Panchayath. That this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter by virtue of sections 36 and 38 of the Displaced Persons(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and that the plaintiffs are not eligible to sue as Indigent persons as they have sufficient means and properties to pay the court fee and sought for dismissal of the suit. 22. Basing on the above pleadings the trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession? 3. 22. Basing on the above pleadings the trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession? 3. Whether the suit is without cause of action? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. To what relief? 23. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal AS No.530 of 2016 arising out of OS No. 264/2012 (Old No. 805/2003) are as follows: Originally the suit was filed by the GPA holder of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 against sole defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the purchasers from the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are added as plaintiff Nos.3 to 6. The sole defendant Patti @ Begari Ramaiah died and his sons are added as defendant Nos. 2 to 4.The plaint averments in brief are that: 24. One Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani was a displaced person from Pakistan, and he was allotted agricultural land in Sy.No. 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286 and 287 of Puppalguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by the custodian of Evacuee properties vide proceedings No. HYD/53/9999, dt.16-09-1967 and HYD/53/A/11005, dated 7-10-1967 and since then he was in possession of those lands and subsequently, the said lands were mutated in his name and pattedar pass books vide patta No.496, Passbook No. 366029 and title deed No.356146 were issued. The said Ravinder Kumar Balwani through his GPA holder Dr. P. Mallikarjuna Rao sold a part of land in S.No.279 to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 under registered sale deeds dated 20-11-2002, 14-11-2002 and 05-12-2002, admeasuring the extents of Ac.2-20 gts, 1-10 gts. and Ac.1-10 gts respectively and since then the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are in exclusive possession of those properties and on their application for mutation of their names in the revenue records to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar Mandal, due enquiry was conducted by giving notice to the 1stdefendant and passed orders by mutating the names of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 vide proceedings No. B/4698 and 4680 of 2002, dated 19-04-2003 by rejecting objections raised by the 1st defendant and by holding that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their vendors are in possession of the plaint schedule property. When the defendant No.1 with the help of henchmen and other unsocial elements without having any right visited the suit lands on 30-07-2003 at 3 pm and tried to interfere with their possession, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 could resist their illegal attempts and as the defendant No.1 has proclaimed to renew his attempts it caused the plaintiffs 1 & 2 to file the suit for injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No. 279 (part) of land within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. 25. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs 3 to 6 purchased the above said property from the plaintiffs 1 and 2 under different sale deeds bearing documents No.19806/2005 dated 14-12-2005, 6322/2006 dated 17-3-2006, 6323/2006, dated 17-3-2006 and 8022/2006 and 8023/2006, dated 1-4-2006 and in pursuance of the above stated transfers, they have been in effective possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties from plaintiffs 1and 2 and sought for perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs 3 to 6 and against the defendants 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant. 26. The deceased 1st defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contends that the claim of the plaintiffs based on the sale deeds created during the pendency of OS.854/2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, West & South is void, bad in law and that the suit schedule land is part and parcel of the suit schedule land in OS No.854 of 2002, wherein in I.A.No.2241 of 2002, the vendor of the plaintiffs was declared as not in possession of the entire land in Sy.No.279, admeasuring Acs.10.02 guntas, situated at Puppalaguda village, Rajendernagar Mandal, R.R.District, as such, the claim of possession by the plaintiffs is to be rejected as they were found to be not in possession. The status of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani as a displaced person is denied and contends that the alleged proceedings dated 16-9-1967 are created only by playing tricks and that the cause of action mentioned in the suit is a created one. In the proceedings Lr.No.Hyd/53/9999, dated 16.9.1967, there is no reference either of application or of displaced person and his detailed particulars. Since the vendor of the plaintiffs was not in possession of the suit land, as such, the question of possession of plaintiffs through their vendor does not arise. In the proceedings Lr.No.Hyd/53/9999, dated 16.9.1967, there is no reference either of application or of displaced person and his detailed particulars. Since the vendor of the plaintiffs was not in possession of the suit land, as such, the question of possession of plaintiffs through their vendor does not arise. The vendor of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 did not have title and possession and in the declaration filed on behalf of the vendor of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, it was mentioned in it that the lands which were said to have been allotted to the displaced person were sold to Brahamaiah, Thota Panchajanyam and Smt. P. Susheela of Mettuguda in the year 1966 in anticipation of allotments and that the vendor of the plaintiffs being highly influential people have managed the revenue authorities and obtained favourable orders. This defendant had preferred an appeal against the proceedings issued by MRO before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella vide file bearing No. C/2254/2003 and that under the guise of the injunction orders obtained in this suit, the plaintiffs are trying to dispossess the defendant No.1. The said Ravinder Kumar Balwani is not existing and a fictitious person and sought for the production of the said Ravinder Kumar Balwani before the court. The defendant No.1 further contends that he has been in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit lands for the past more than 50 years and the said Ravinder Kumar Balwani as a person with a defective title cannot pass a better title than he possessed and thereby sought for the dismissal of the suit. 27. The defendant No.1 filed additional written statement reiterating the averments in the written statement, which were made as a plaintiff in the comprehensive suit OS.821/2010, as such, the same need not be reproduced. 28. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed by the trial Court on 15-03-2004: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the alleged interference by the defendants is true? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual Injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 29. Additional issued framed on 15-11-2010. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the alleged interference by the defendants is true? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual Injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 29. Additional issued framed on 15-11-2010. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit Schedule property as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 30. Additional issue framed on 21-12-2011 as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.4191/2011 and 4217/2011: “Whether the subject suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of perpetual injunction simplicitor is maintainable in the light of the dispute regarding the authenticity of the documents of title and ownership of the plaintiffs raised by the defendants?” 31. Facts which are necessary for disposal of AS No.539 of 2016 arising out of O.S No. 265/2012 (Old No. 877/2003): Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 against sole defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the 3rd plaintiff Smt. PushpaLeelavathi died and her son Dr. P. Mallikarjun Rao was added as her legal heir, and consequent to the death of 4th defendant, his wife and children are added as defendants No. 5 to 7 as per orders in I.A.No.1103 of 2010 dated 18.06.2010. The purchasers from the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are added as plaintiffs 8 and 9, as per orders in I.A.No.2520 of 2009 dated 31.07.2010. The sole defendant Patti @Begari Ramaiah died and his sons are added as defendants 2 to 4. Brief averments in plaint are as follows: 32. The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas forming part of Sy.No.279 situated at Puppalguda village and Gram Panchayat, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.6229 of 2002 dated 14.11.2002 (Schedule ‘A’ property)and the plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 are the joint owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.2.22 guntas forming part of Sy.No.279 situated at Puppalguda village and Gram Panchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.10120 of 2002 dated 20.11.2002 (Schedule ‘B’ property). Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have purchased the same from one Mr.Ravindra Kumar Balwani, who was a displaced person and was allotted an aggregate agriculture land of Ac.69-36 gts. in Sy.No. 279, 281, 283 to 287 of Puppalaguda Village, erstwhile Hyderabad West Taluq through the allotment letter No.Hyd/53/9999, dated 16.09.1967, by the custodian of Evacuee Properties and the said allottee was issued pattedar pass book and land ownership pass book in respect of all the survey numbers and that the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 have purchased the plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties from the GPA holder of the allottee. On their application for mutation of their names in the revenue records to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar Mandal, after conducting due enquiry by giving notice to the 1st defendant, passed orders by mutating the names of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 vide proceedings No. B/4680 and 4698 of 2002 Dt. 19-04-2003 by rejecting the objections raised by the defendant No.1, by confirming the possession of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and their vendor in respect of the plaint "A and B" schedule properties and that no appeal or revision has been preferred by the 1stdefendant against those orders in spite of knowledge and as such those orders became final. 33. The 8th plaintiff purchased the suit land admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts out of Sy.No.279 from Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 through registered sale deed document No.13156 of 2005, dated 14.12.2005 and the plaintiff No.9 purchased the suit land admeasuring Ac.2.20 gts out of Sy.No.279, from the plaintiff No.1 through registered sale deed No.13537 of 2005, dated 22.08.2005. The plaintiff No.9 further purchased the suit land admeasuring Ac.1.12 guntas out of Sy.No.279 from M/s.Vistas Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through registered sale deed document No.1554 of 2009, dated 15.12.2008, who in turn purchased the land from the plaintiffs 2 & 3 through registered sale deed vide document No.13157 of 2005, dated 14.12.2005. Pursuant to the said sale deeds, the plaintiffs 8 & 9 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and their names have also been mutated in revenue records. The plaintiffs 8 & 9 have also constructed rooms by obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat, Puppalaguda in file No.GP No.50/08 dated 29.09.2008 and also obtained electricity connection. 34. Pursuant to the said sale deeds, the plaintiffs 8 & 9 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and their names have also been mutated in revenue records. The plaintiffs 8 & 9 have also constructed rooms by obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat, Puppalaguda in file No.GP No.50/08 dated 29.09.2008 and also obtained electricity connection. 34. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 could resist the attempts made by the defendant No.1 on 18-08-2003 at 3 pm with the help of henchmen, against whom orders of injunction were passed in OS No.805/2003 (New O.S.No. 264/2012) by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist., and that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are not left with any other alternative remedy except to file the suit for injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.5-02 gts in Sy.No.279 (part) of land within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule and the plaintiffs No. 8 and 9 being transferees of title in respect of the suit schedule lands are entitled for protecting their possession and sought for perpetual injunction against the defendants 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant. 35. The deceased 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and to put the strict proof of ownership of plaintiff No.1 in respect of Ac.2.20 guntas and that of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 in respect of land admeasuring Ac2.22 guntas in survey No.279 of Puppalguda village including the title of their vendor and also sought for the strict proof of the execution of registered title deeds in their favour by their respective vendors. The vendor of the plaintiffs himself was not in possession of the suit schedule property, as such, the question of delivering possession by the vendor of the plaintiffs in their favour does not arise and that he is in uninterrupted possession of the total extent of Acs.10.02 guntas Puppalguda village and that the vendor of the plaintiffs was never delivered the possession of property. The vendor of the plaintiffs did not possess any other documents except the allotment letter issued by Government of India. The vendor of the plaintiffs did not possess any other documents except the allotment letter issued by Government of India. The vendor of the plaintiffs filed declaration in CC No. 843/W/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, West Division, wherein the vendor of the plaintiffs specifically mentioned that the lands admeasuring Ac.10.02 guntas of Puppalguda village are sold vide agreement dated 14--1966 to one Brahmaiah, Thota Panchajanyam and Smt. P. Susheela of Mettiguda village under three equal shares on receipt of total sale consideration and in such course the sale of lands in favour of plaintiffs herein is total falsehood and by suppressing several facts, the vendor of the plaintiffs filed OS 854/2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and South, R.R. District for perpetual Injunction against the defendant herein and one KhanapuramGandaiah in respect of an extent of land in survey No.279 admeasuring Ac10.02 guntas and against land in survey No.284 admeasuring Ac.4.03 guntas of Puppaiguda village and Injunction Petition was dismissed on merits by observing that Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani was not in the possession of property. The vendor of the plaintiffs got managed the revenue officials with his influence and got his name mutated in the revenue records and such orders of mutation were carried on appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, which are pending. The plaintiffs by taking advantage of the orders of injunction in OS.805/2003, are trying to dispossess the defendant and that the entire revenue record was created subsequent to the filing of OS.854/2003 as an aid to this suit and that in spite of repeated demands by the defendant, the said RavinderKumarBalwani was not produced before any Court and that a person cannot transfer a better title than he possessed and a person cannot put his vendee in possession of property in the absence of his holding possession, the suit for mere injunction is liable for dismissal as not maintainable. 36. The 1st defendant filed additional written statement reiterating the averments in the written statement, which were made in the comprehensive suit O.S.No.821/2010 as such, they are not required to be reproduced. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues on 15-03-2004: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the alleged interference by the defendants is true? 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues on 15-03-2004: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the alleged interference by the defendants is true? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 37. Additional issues framed on 15-11-2010: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as prayed for? 2. To what relief?” 38. Additional issue framed on 21-12-2011 as per direction of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.4191/2011 and 4217/2011: “Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of perpetual injunction simplicitor is maintainable in the light of the dispute regarding the authenticity of the documents of title and ownership of the plaintiffs raised by the defendants?” 39. The suits i.e., O.S.264/2012 (Old O.S.No.805/2003) and O.S.No.265/2012 (O.S.No.877/2003) have been filed by the plaintiffs-purchasers from one Mr.Ravinder Kumar Balwani-, for injunction were pending in the court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District and the same were transferred to the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court for trying along with the comprehensive suit O.S.No.821/2010, which is filed by one Mr.Patti @ Begari Ramaiah. During pendency of O.S.Nos.264& 265 of 2012 in the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, two witnesses as PWs 1 &2were examined in each case on behalf of plaintiffs and got marked Ex. A1 to A63 in OS 264/2012 and Ex. A1 to A52 in OS 265/2012. 40. In O.S. No.821/2010 P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, D.WI was examined on behalf of the defendants. CWS 1 to 3 are examined as court witnesses. Exs.Al to A12, Ex.B1 to B89 and Ex.C1 to C15 are marked. In all, ten witnesses were examined in all the three suits on either side. 41. For the sake of convenience the Court below renumbered the witnesses examined as PWS 1 and 2 in O.S.No.264/2012 (O.S.No. 805/2003) as DWs 2 and 3 and the witnesses examined as PWs 1 &2 in O.S.No.265/2012 (O.S.No.877/2003) were renumbered as DWs 4 &5. In all, ten witnesses were examined in all the three suits on either side. 41. For the sake of convenience the Court below renumbered the witnesses examined as PWS 1 and 2 in O.S.No.264/2012 (O.S.No. 805/2003) as DWs 2 and 3 and the witnesses examined as PWs 1 &2 in O.S.No.265/2012 (O.S.No.877/2003) were renumbered as DWs 4 &5. Original documents were filed in OS.264/2012 and OS.265/2012 and the identical certified copies have also been filed in OS.821/2010 and therefore the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.821 of 2010 as Ex. A1 to A12 and Exs.B1 to B89 have been marked on behalf of the defendants and Exs.C1 to C15 have been marked on behalf of the court witnesses. 42. Since the plaintiffs in O.S.No.821 of 2010 are defendants in the suits filed by the defendants in O.S.Nos.264 & 265 of 2012 and the plaintiffs in the above suits are defendants in O.S.No.821 of 2010 and the property involved in all these suits is one and the same, the Court below considered the oral and documentary evidence in O.S.No.821 of 2010 and dismissed O.S.No.821 of 2010 and decreed O.S.Nos.264 & 265 of 2012 by way of Common Judgment. Assailing the same, present appeals have been filed. 43. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 44. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 2nd respondent and his alleged GPA i.e., 3rd respondent were never in possession of the subject property, but the appellants and their ancestors are in possession of the suit schedule property, which is evident from Ex.A10, which is the certified copy of order and decree in I.A.No.2241 of 2002 in OS No.854 of 2002. The alleged allotment letters in favour of 2nd respondent have been created and fabricated for the purpose of grabbing the property of the appellants and that the same are fabricated, which is evident from the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide proceedings Ref.No.LP1/401/98 dated 08.01.2001 in view of report of the MRO under Section 6(2) of the Rules in LGC No.24 of 2001, dated 08.01.2001. The alleged GPA in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 14.12.1966 is fabricated one and the application filed by him under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1972 was dismissed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West-cum-Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The alleged GPA in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 14.12.1966 is fabricated one and the application filed by him under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1972 was dismissed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West-cum-Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.SEB/138/82, dated 03.07.2001 is erroneous and that since the respondents 2 & 3 have no title in respect of the suit land, they cannot sell the suit schedule property in favour of respondents 14 to 35. Since the 2nd respondent claims to be a Pakistani refugee, failed to provide his address in Pakistan, his status itself is suspicious, as such, the alleged GPA in favour of 3rdrespondent and after his death in favour of 8th respondent on 20.01.2010 cannot be relied upon and that the alleged sale deeds alleged to have been executed in favour of respondents 14 to 35 by the GPA holders of 2nd respondent including the house tax receipts were all created for the purpose of filing suit. 45. On the other hand, Sri K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 15, 16, 18 & 19 submits that the 2nd respondent migrated to India from Pakistan as a displaced person and settled down in Bombay and he was also an employee of Maharashtra Government. The 2nd respondent made an application to the Central Government for compensation in lieu of the properties left behind by him in Pakistan when he migrated to India and appointed the 3rd respondent as his attorney through GPA dated 14.12.1966 with a power to receive said allotment orders including possession of the property and to deal with the same. On 16.09.1967 and 07.10.1967, the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay vide two allotment orders No.Hyd/53/9999 and Hyd/53-A/11005, dated 07.10.1967 allotted lands to an extent of Acs.85.21 gts in Sy.Nos.279, 281 to 287 at Puppalguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and alienated the same in favour of prospective purchasers i.e., respondents 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 & 17, who in turn sold the same to respondents 15, 16, 18, 19 and one G.Ravinder Rao through registered sale deeds/registered agreement of sale-cum-GPAs and the names of the purchasers were mutated in revenue records. He also submits that since the appellants are asserting their rights over the suit schedule properties as tenants by denying the title of the respondents 2 to 37, they cannot claim the right over the same by way of adverse possession. He also submits that the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellants when once the suit schedule property is an evacuee property and that the repeal of the Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 does not have any affect the rights already accrued to the parties. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Keshavan Madhava Minan v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1951 SC 128 ) and Harichandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1965 SC 932 ). The acquisition of the evacuee property by the Central Government under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 results in vesting of title in the property in the Central Government absolutely free from all encumbrances and it ousts the powers of Custodian of Evacuee property under the Administration of Properties Act, 1950. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in M.Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., v. M.Prabhakar [( 2011 5 SCC 607 ]. He also submits that permissive possession howsoever long does not result in converting permission possession into adverse possession. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in Thakur Kishan Singh (Died) v. Arvind Kumar (1994) 6 SCC 591 para 5; Darshanam Swamy v. Ritu Malhotra 2007(5) ALD 701 . He also submits that the plea of adverse possession is not tenable when the true owner’s title is denied. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in Dagada Bai (died per LRs) v. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari (2017) 13 SCC 705 , Shri Uttam Chand (died per LRs) v. Nathu Ram (died per LRs (2020) 11 SCC 263 and M.Sidiq (dead) through LRs (Rama Janmabhumi Temple) v. M.Suresh Das [ (2020) 1 SCC 1 ]. The appellants also miserably failed to prove that they are in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property, prior to dispossession by the respondents. The appellants also miserably failed to prove that they are in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property, prior to dispossession by the respondents. Since the title of the suit schedule property has already been decided by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in LAOP Nos.1197 & 1203 of 2007 on 15.0.2019, the present suit is hit by the principle of res judicata, as the aforesaid proceedings have become final as they remain unchallenged till date. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal[ (2015) 3 SCC 624 ] and Ram Gobinda Daw and others v. H.Bhakta Bala Dassi [ AIR 1971 SC 664 ]. The identity of the 2nd respondent is proved beyond doubt and witnesses i.e, C.Ws.1 to 3 were examined to that effect. Even though the LGC No.24 of 2001 was dismissed, the appellants herein, who are respondents therein remained exparte and did not contest the said LGC. However, the claim of the appellants over the suit schedule property in LGC SR Nos.1468 of 2007 and LGC SR No.1345 of 2009 was rejected. He submits that when there are two conflicting decrees of the same court between the same parties, the last would prevail and the first shall be regarded as dead. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in Rajani Kumar Mitra v. Ajmaddin Bhuiya [1928 SCC Online Cal 396 para 5. And Kunjan v. Janaki [1980 SCC Online Ker 174 para 11]. 46. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, the following points that emerge for consideration in these appeals are as follows: a) Whether the identity of the 2nd respondent-Ravinder Kumar Balwani is proved beyond reasonable doubt? If so, the allotment of suit lands in his favour is true and valid? b) Whether the alleged sale transactions by the 3rd respondent-GPA holder of 2nd respondent in favour of respondents 4 to 36 are valid or not? c) Whether the plea of adverse possession is available to the appellants when they are claiming right over the suit schedule property as tenants, denying title of the owner, that too, over suit property? d) Whether the appellants are in continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession for a period of 12 years over the suit lands to claim adverse possession? c) Whether the plea of adverse possession is available to the appellants when they are claiming right over the suit schedule property as tenants, denying title of the owner, that too, over suit property? d) Whether the appellants are in continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession for a period of 12 years over the suit lands to claim adverse possession? e) Whether the judgments in LGC SR 1468/2007 and LGC SR No.1345/2009 and in LAOP Nos.1197 and 1203 of 2007 operates as resjudicata in the suit? f) Whether the appellants are entitled to maintain suit for recovery of possession when they are claiming to be in adverse possession over the suit schedule property? g) Whether the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property and if so, they are entitled for perpetual injunction for against the appellants? h) To what relief? 47. Points (a) & (b): “a) Whether the identity of the 2nd respondent-Ravinder Kumar Balwani is proved beyond reasonable doubt? If so, the allotment of suit lands in his favour is true and valid? b) Whether the alleged sale transactions by the 3rd respondent-GPA holder of 2nd respondent in favour of respondents 4 to 36 are valid or not?” It is an admitted fact that the plaint schedule properties in S.No.279 and 284 along with some other properties in Sy.Nos. 281 to 283 and 285 to 287 originally belonged to Mr. Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung and after his migration to Pakistan during partition, the same were declared as evacuee properties by the competent authority. It is the specific contention of the appellants that they being the schedule caste peasants have been cultivating the lands as tenants since the period of their forefathers, even before and after Mr. Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung and that the respondent No.2-Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani, who is alleged to have migrated from Pakistan to India, was allotted an extent of Ac.85.21 guntas in different survey numbers including the suit Survey Nos.279 and 284 is non-existing person and that nobody witnessed him before any court and that he is a fictitious person, created only for the purpose of grabbing the suit schedule properties, which the appellants in OS.821/2010 are claiming their title by way of adverse possession. 48. Even though an application is filed calling for the presence of Mr. 48. Even though an application is filed calling for the presence of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani/2nd defendant before the court below by plaintiff in O.S.No.821 of 2010, the same was dismissed as not pressed. As the sole defendant in OS.264/2012 and 265/2012 late Patti @ Begari Ramaiah specifically disputes about the existence of said Ravinder Kumar Balwani in his written statements, the said Ravinder Kumar Balwani attended this court on 11-08-2014 in a wheelchair and he declared his date of birth as 20-06-1927 and the court has verified his original passport and original pension book in the open court in the presence of Advocates on either side. 49. It is pertinent to note here that on an application filed by the appellants in I.A.No.1080 of 2011 in OS.No.821/2010, the Court below passed orders on 18.01.2012, wherein the Director General of Police, Mumbai was called to verify the correctness of the original documents of 2nd defendant-Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and to also file a report. Accordingly, the office of DGP after due verification of the documents produced by 2nd defendant, after securing his presence before them, sent a report to the court below. In this connection, it is relevant to examine the evidence of the Senior Inspector of DCBCID, Mumbai, who got examined as CW1. He categorically deposed that being directed by the trial Court, he issued notice to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani by calling upon him to produce the original documents, which are directed to be verified by the court. He also deposed that the said Ravinder Kumar Balwani attended before him on 24-2-2012 and that he recorded the statement of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and verified all the original documents produced by him. He also deposed that he collected reports from Regional Passport Office dated 23.02.2012, Rationing Office, Mumbai dated 23.02.2012, Mantralaya (Secretariat) Finance Department, Office of the Civil Defence of Maharashtra, Canara Bank Mumbai, Sub Registrar, Mumbai city, and also from the Accountant General dated 06.03.2012, who deals with the pension of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani. He further deposed that after collecting all these reports from above offices, he submitted the report to his superior officer i.e, to the DGP, who in turn forwarded the same to the court below under a covering letter dated 05.03.2012. The correspondence between the court below and the DGP office and the other work done by CW1 is marked as Exs. The correspondence between the court below and the DGP office and the other work done by CW1 is marked as Exs. C1 to C11. The statement of 2nd defendant-Ravinder Kumar Balwani is marked as Ex. C12. The evidence of CW1 makes crystal clear that 2nd defendant-Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani is a retired Government Servant in the State of Maharashtra and he is also drawing pension, as such, the contention of the appellants that the said Mr.Ravinder Kumar Balwani is non-existing and fictitious person, does not merit consideration. 50. The evidence of C.W.1 is also corroborated by the evidence of D.W.1, i.e., Smt. P. Susheela who is the defendant No.8 in OS.821/2010, 5th plaintiff in OS. 265/2012. In her chief examination, she categorically deposed that the 2nd defendant is alive holding valid passport, voter I.D and that he is also drawing pension from the Maharashtra Government as on that day from the Central Bank of India, Colaba Causeway Branch, Mumbai vide A/c.No.1019005762. She further deposed that the 2nd defendant appeared before the Police, Mumbai as per the directions of the Court below and also produced his passport and pension papers from his custody in the Court in proof of his identity and the same was part of the proceedings of the Court below on 11.08.2014. Ex.B2, original passport of 2nd defendant, issued by Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, Ex.B3, yearly life certificate for the year 2013-14 and duplicate pension payment order of 2nd defendant issued by the Pay & Accounts Office, the Public Information Officer, Government of Maharashtra under RTI Act and Ex.B4 the pension papers issued by the Office of Under Secretary Finance Department, Secretariat of Maharashtra under RTI Act were marked.D.W.1 is the present GPA holder of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani through registered GPA document No.722/2010, dated 20.01.2010 and categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit about status of 2nd defendant, his migration from Pakistan to India, allotment of evacuee property by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay vide orders No.Hyd/53/9999, dated 16.09.1967 and Hyd/53-A/11005, dated 07.10.1967 in Sy.Nos.279, 281, 283 to 287 admeasuring Acs.69.36 gts and land in Sy.No.282 admeasuring Acs.15.25 gts at Puppalguda Village, which were marked as Ex. B10 and B11 in his favour and also about his service in Maharashtra Government in Finance Department and also his permanent residence in Mumbai. B10 and B11 in his favour and also about his service in Maharashtra Government in Finance Department and also his permanent residence in Mumbai. It is also evident that earlier to her, the said Ravinder Kumar Balwani was represented by her husband Mr. P.Mallikarjuna Rao-3rd defendant, since 1966 onwards. 51. When the issuance of Power of Attorney and its authenticity, was disputed by the plaintiffs in OS.821/2010, the court below ordered for the verification of the correctness of the GPA issued by Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani in her favour and also the GPA issued in favour of her husband. An Advocate commissioner was also appointed by the court below for verification of the passport, pension book, GPA etc, with the original record available in the concerned offices vide orders dated 24.09.2014 in I.A.No.182 of 2014 in O.S.No.821 of 2010. The Advocate Commissioner after execution of the warrant filed his report on 13.10.2014, which is marked as Ex. C14. 52. The Advocate commissioner-K.Amarender Reddy was examined as C.W.2 as a Court witness. He categorically deposed that he fixed the date of execution of the warrant on 30-9-2014 and at that time, Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and Sampath Kumar (PW1) and the counsel for both the parties Mr. Prakash Chakravarthi and Mr. Mohan Rao were present. Basing on the documentary evidence collected by the Advocate Commissioner i.e., Original Pension Record as well as original GPA No.722 of 2010 dated 20.01.2010, it is clear that there is sufficient evidence before the court below to discard the contention of the appellants/plaintiffs regarding the nonexistence of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwanias only a baseless allegation. As per the material available on record, it is clear that that the Government of India has recognized Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani as a refugee from Pakistan and he was allotted agricultural land under the allotment orders marked as Ex. B10 and B11 and the Revenue Department of Andhra Pradesh and also the Union of India recognized and possession of the suit schedule property along with other property was delivered to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani. 53. In view of above facts and circumstances, the existence of 2nd respondent and allotment of the subject land in his favour by the Central Government in the year 1967 is proved. Ravinder Kumar Balwani. 53. In view of above facts and circumstances, the existence of 2nd respondent and allotment of the subject land in his favour by the Central Government in the year 1967 is proved. When once the allotment of land in favour of Mr.Ravinder Kumar Balwani-2nd defendant and execution of registered GPA in favour of the 3rd respondent is proved and evidence discussed above also proved, the sale deeds executed in favour of other defendants i.e., 4 to 36 are true, valid and binding on the appellants. Therefore, the points (a) and (b) decided against the appellants. 54. Point (c) & (d): c) Whether the plea of adverse possession is available to the appellants when they are claiming right over the suit schedule property as tenants that too, denying title of the owner, that too, over suit property? d) Whether the appellants are in continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession for a period of 12 years over the suit lands to claim adverse possession? Admittedly, the suit filed by the appellants in OS.821/2010 for declaration of their title as absolute owners due to prescription by way of adverse possession and also for recovery of possession. It is well settled principle of law that one can be dispossessed only when he is in possession of the property and similarly if a person is not in possession, he cannot be dispossessed. A perusal of the averments of plaint filed in O.S.No.821 of 2010 goes to show that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are claiming to be the absolute owners and possessors of plaint 'A' schedule agricultural land and the plaintiff No. 5 is claiming as the absolute owner and possessor of plaint 'B' schedule agricultural land. That apart, it is also relevant to evaluate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs 2 and 8 in OS. 821/2010, who, during the course of their evidence, deposed that they are the scheduled caste peasants cultivating the disputed lands as tenants since ages and that their names were noted in the revenue records including Sethwar, faisalpatti, Jamabandi, Vasul Baki, Khasara Pahani and the Sheeshala Pahani which are the authentic revenue records of Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh. 821/2010, who, during the course of their evidence, deposed that they are the scheduled caste peasants cultivating the disputed lands as tenants since ages and that their names were noted in the revenue records including Sethwar, faisalpatti, Jamabandi, Vasul Baki, Khasara Pahani and the Sheeshala Pahani which are the authentic revenue records of Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh. They also deposed that after the migration the pattedar Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung to Pakistan and after the declaration of the lands as evacuee property lands under the Evacuee Properties Act 1950, the cultivating peasants including the families of the plaintiffs continued to be in possession. They also deposed that even though the properties are declared as evacuee properties, the authorities have not resumed the possession as contemplated Under Section 8 of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950. 55. In the cross-examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that they do not know the name of the pattedar under whom their great grand fathers were the tenants. Even though P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed during the course of their cross-examination that they do not know whether the lands are declared as evacuee lands, their pleadings disclose that the suit schedule land is evacuee land, and they know that the disputed lands are under custodian. The name of custodian of evacuee properties was mentioned in the pattedar columns in respect of those lands. In order to prove that the plaintiffs 1 and 5, who are the respective fathers of PWs 1 and 2 are in possession of schedule properties, PW1 has filed a set of pahanies for the years 1958-59 onwards till 2000-2001 with intervals and those are marked as Ex. A2. PWs 1 and 2 deposed that even though the schedule properties along with some other properties in different survey numbers are declared as custodian properties, the plaintiffs 1 and 5 were not divested with possession and they continued to be in possession. 56. In this connection, it is relevant to consider the cross-examination of P.W.1, who deposed that the MRO issued intimation to the plaintiffs 1 and 5 calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.450 per standard acre of land in their possession and that due to non availability of funds, they could not pay that amount. 56. In this connection, it is relevant to consider the cross-examination of P.W.1, who deposed that the MRO issued intimation to the plaintiffs 1 and 5 calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.450 per standard acre of land in their possession and that due to non availability of funds, they could not pay that amount. But such intimation said to have been issued by the MRO to the plaintiffs 1 and 5 is not filed either before the Court below or any other forum. They also deposed that the plaintiffs 1 and 5 made an application to the District Collector Dt.27-4-1994 requesting him for allotment of pattas in their favour for the land in their possession, however, the alleged application dated 27.04.1994 said to have been made by the plaintiff 1 and 5 is not placed before the court below. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the plaintiffs 1 and 5 who claimed to have been cultivating the lands as tenants, did not pay any amount as called for by the District Collector. They both denied the suggestion that the District Collector rejected their representation under a memo dated 08-7-1997. However, DW1 filed such memo, and it is marked as Ex. B14, under which the plaintiff No.1/Sri Patti Ramaiah was intimated that the land in S.No.279 admeasuring Ac. 10.02 guntas at Puppalaguda village was allotted to Sri. Ravinder Kumar Balwani, S/o. Tarumal Balwani by Government of India, Ministry of Labour Employment and rehabilitation vide allotment order No. HYD/53/9999 Dt. 16-9-1967 and that the request of Patti Ramaiah for allotment of the above land could not be considered. 57. It is pertinent to note here that P.Ws.1 & 2, during the course of their cross-examination admitted that when the defendants 4 to 6 Smt. Dr.P Mamatha, Dr. Pushpa Leelavathi and Mr.P Shiva Kumar made an application to MRO for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of S.No. 279, the plaintiffs 1 and 5 raised objections and that their objections were rejected by the MRO and the names of defendants 4 to 6 were mutated in the pattedar and possessor column vide proceedings bearing on 19-4-2003. The proceedings are exhibited by DW1 and those are marked as Ex.B17 dated 19-4-2003. The proceedings are exhibited by DW1 and those are marked as Ex.B17 dated 19-4-2003. A perusal of the said order of MRO goes to show that he verified records placed before him and came to the conclusion that the suit schedule evacuee land was allotted to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and the said orders were implemented in the record of rights in the year 1997 itself. It is also clarified therein that Tenancy Act is not applicable to lands acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or State Government and also held that recognizing anybody as a protected tenant of evacuee property and giving him ownership rights U/s. 38 E of Tenancy Act does not arise. Finally, the MRO has allowed the petition filed by the purchasers of the 2 defendant Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani, Accordingly, the petition filed by Smt.Mamatha, P.Shiva Kumar and Smt.Pushpavathi, who are the defendants 4 to 6 was allowed ordering mutation of the lands purchased by them in their names in the record of rights. Assailing the same, the appeal filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 5 i.e., Sri. Patti Ramaiah and Sri. Khanapuram Gandalah was also dismissed on 27-4-2006 by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, which is marked as Ex. B19 by upholding the orders passed by the MRO under Ex.B.17. 58. The evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that one Patti. Devadanam, who is their paternal Uncle was also the cultivator of land in S.Nos. 280, 281 and 285 admeasuring Ac.33.35 guntas of Puppalaguda village which also belonged to Mr. Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung, which were also a part of evacuee property lands and that he was granted patta under the proceedings dated 29-5-1994 which is marked as Ex.A11. In the said order it was discussed by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division after due enquiry in to the matter submitted proposals stating that the pattedar of the above said lands executed a 'Koulnama' in favour of Smt. Patti Nagamma, the mother of the petitioner Devadanam during 1345 fasli, before the pattedar migrated to Pakistan and those lands were in occupation of the family members of the petitioner/Devadanam as lease holders prior to promulgation of administration of evacuee property ordinance 1949 and subsequently the petitioner has continued in possession. It was also discussed that the Revenue Divisional Officer further reported that as per the instructions of the Government of India Dt.6-5-1964 regarding the disposal of evacuee agricultural lands, those can be transferred in favour of the protected tenants and ordinary tenants after collecting Rs.450/- per standard acre. 59. A perusal of the order dated 29.05.1994 further reveals that basing on a proposals made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, the Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District held that the mother of the petitioner-Patti Devadanam was the lease holder of the land from Sri.Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung before his migration and after vesting of the lands with the custodian of evacuee property, the petitioner-Devadanam continued his occupation by paying annual lease to the Government as fixed and held that the petitioner is an ordinary tenant of the land claimed and is entitled for transfer of lands in his favour in the light of the instructions contained in Lr.No. RSC/B/Land/Bom/DISP/LTS/32468/79/1964 Dt.6-5-1964 of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, Government of India after payment of Rs.450/- per standard acre and ordered for the transfer of evacuee property land stated above in favour of Patti. Devadanam S/o. Narasaiah. Except the entries in the pahanies for few years, there is no other evidence that the plaintiffs 1 and 5 held the disputed lands either as protected tenants or as ordinary tenants. The claim of the plaintiffs for issuing pattas was rejected under the proceedings marked as Ex.B14 Dt.8-7-1997. For the sake of clarity, the proceedings of Memo dated 08.07.1997 is extracted hereunder: “The petitioner Sri Patti Ramaiah S/o.Narsaiah R/o.Narsingi village is hereby informed that the Evacuee property land in Sy.Nos.279 extent Acs.10.02 situated at Puppalguda village, Rajendernagar Mandal was allotted to one Sri Ravinder Kumar S/o.Tharumal Balwan by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour Employment and Rehabilitation vide allotment order No.Hyd/53/9999, dated 16.09.1967. Hence, the request of the petitioner for allotment of the above land is not considered.” 60. In view of above proceedings, the suit is not even maintainable for declaration of title by adverse possession as the plaintiffs are claiming to be the tenants of the property and in such case the claim of adverse possession does not arise. Hence, the request of the petitioner for allotment of the above land is not considered.” 60. In view of above proceedings, the suit is not even maintainable for declaration of title by adverse possession as the plaintiffs are claiming to be the tenants of the property and in such case the claim of adverse possession does not arise. It is the categorical admission of the appellants in the plaint that they are in possession of the property as tenants on one hand and on the other hand,they denied the title of the respondents, against whom they set up plea of adverse possession. That apart, P.W.1 in his chief examination categorically deposed that the father of the P.W.1 i.e. Begari Ramaiah and the father of the 5th plaintiff were cultivating the suit schedule lands as tenants. When once they admitted their possession over the land as tenant, the same does not give the required quality of claiming their title by way of adverse possession. To claim adverse possession, the appellants must be in possession of the property, which should be within the knowledge of the real owners. The appellants must deny the title of the real owner and for that it is essential for the appellants that they must clearly know the actual owner and then only the situation of being in hostile possession to the real owner arises. During the cross examination, P.Ws. 1 and 2 categorically deposed that they do not know under whom their fathers were the tenants, but they only know that the land are custodian lands. 61. Now, it is to be seen whether the appellants are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit lands i.e., for a period of 12 years from the date of actual dispossession, as alleged in the plaint. A perusal of the averments in the plaint in O.S.No.821 of 2010 goes to show that no where it was pleaded when they were actually dispossessed from the suit lands. Even though the appellants relied on the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1958-59, 1964-65, 1971-72, 197576, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 20002001 under Ex.A2, but they are not in continuous possession as the pahanies are for different spells. That apart, they claimed to be in possession of the suit lands as tenants. 62. Even though the appellants relied on the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1958-59, 1964-65, 1971-72, 197576, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 20002001 under Ex.A2, but they are not in continuous possession as the pahanies are for different spells. That apart, they claimed to be in possession of the suit lands as tenants. 62. On the other hand, on petition filed by the respondents 4 to 6, their possession had been proved vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 1904.2003, wherein it is observed as follows: “Heard both parties and verified the records. The suit land i.e., Sy.No.279 Ex.10gts is originally Evacuee property in nature. The said land was allotted to one Mr.Ravindra Kumar Balwani S/o.ThirumalaBalwani. The same orders were implemented in the Record of Rights I the year 1997 and Mr.Ravindra Kumar Balwani is recorded as pattadar and occupant and issued pattadar Pass Book (No.366029) and Title deed (No.356146). Sri P.Mallikarjuna Rao who got registered G.P.A from the Original allottee is also recorded on a G.P.A holder in the Revenue Records and pass books title deed. The present petitioners have purchased the suit lands form Sri Ravindra Kumar Balwani through his registered G.P.A. holder Dr.P.Mallikarjuna Rao. So the petitioners have purchased the suit lands from the rightful pattadar. The arguments of objection petitioner are that they are continuous possession over the suit lands are not valid since these lands are evacuee property and allotted to Mr.Ravindra Kumar Balwani long back. As per circular instructions of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, A.P, Hyderabad vide ESS & JR’s ref.No.SEP2/179/90, dated 20.11.1992, the evacuee property cannot become patta land just like that without proper allotment order under D.P(C&R) Act, 1954. If there is no allotment order, the Collector should correct the pahani in which the names of others than custodian and the Collector may invoke their power under ROR Act if necessary. It is also clarified that Tenancy Act is not applicable to lands acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or State Government. The evacuee property is acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of D.P(C&R) Act, 1954. Hence, recognizing anybody as a Protected Tenant on Evacue property and giving him ownership rights under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act does not arise. The evacuee property is acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of D.P(C&R) Act, 1954. Hence, recognizing anybody as a Protected Tenant on Evacue property and giving him ownership rights under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act does not arise. After correction of pahanies, the Collector can take action under Section 17 of D.P(C&R) Act, 1954 to evict the encroachments from the land. In view of the foregoing observations, it is clearly found that the petitioners have purchased the suit land i.e., Sy.Nos.279 Extent 2.22 and Sy.No.279/P Ext.2.22 of Puppalguda through registered sale deeds from the bonafide pattadar. The objections filed by the objection petitioners are not deserved for consideration. The petitioners request for mutation in Revenue Records and issue of P.P.Bs and T.Ds is genuine and deserved for consideration. Hence, it is ordered to mutate the sale deeds filed by petitioners in respect of suit lands in the record of Rights.” 63. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Dy.Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, the appellants preferred appeal under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1971 before the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District, who confirmed the orders of M.R.O vide proceedings vide No.C/1548/2004, dated 27.04.2006. The orders of the R.D.O have become final, as the same were never under challenge by the appellants before any forum. 64. That apart, as already observed supra, when the 1st appellant during his life time, made an application to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 27.04.1997 for allotment of suit lands in their favour. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District through Memo dated 08.07.1997, basing on the report of the MRO, Rajendrenagar Mandal vide Lr.No.A/2813/94, dated 23.06.1994 and the report of the Commissioner, SS & LR vide Ref.No.SEP3/138/82, dated 24.05.1997, rejected the request of the appellant No.1. Admittedly, the findings of the Collector have become final, as the same were never under challenge by the appellants till date before any forum. 65. In Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “5. As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A possession of a co-owner or of a licensee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession. Apart from it, the appellate court has gone into detail and after considering the evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant was not adverse…..” 66. In Darshanam Swamy @ Somaiah v. Rithu Malhotra @ Rithu Kapur (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “23. Undoubtedly any person can claim title by way of adverse possession if he had proved that he was in possession and his possession was adequate in continuity in publicity in extent nec vi nec clam and necprecario. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Anjappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570 , considered as to when a person would acquire title by way of adverse possession. Their Lordships held: “The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e., a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts to a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property. Adverse possession is that form of possession or occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of the rightful owner and tends to extinguish that person's title. Possession is not held to be adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title. An occupation of reality is inconsistent with the right of the true owner. Where a person possess property in a manner in which he is not entitled to possess it, and without anything to show that he possesses it otherwise than an owner (that is, with the intention of excluding all persons from it, including the rightful owner), he is in adverse possession of it. It is the basic principle of law of adverse possession that (a) it is the temporary and abnormal separation of the property from the title of it when a man holds property innocently against all the world but wrongfully against the true owner; (b) it is possession inconsistent with the title of the true owner. In order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action.” 67. In order to claim title by way of adverse possession, the appellants must admit the title of the respondent No.2. In the instant case, even though the appellants disputed the identity of the 2nd respondent, the same was decided against them in issues (a) & (b). In order to claim title by way of adverse possession, the appellants must admit the title of the respondent No.2. In the instant case, even though the appellants disputed the identity of the 2nd respondent, the same was decided against them in issues (a) & (b). It is settled principle of law of adverse possession that the person, who claims title over the property on the strength of adverse possession and thereby wants the Court to divest the true owner of his ownership rights over such property, is required to prove his case only against the true owner of the property. It is equally well settled that such person must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner and secondly, the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the Court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants. It is only thereafter and subject to proving other material conditions with the aid of adequate evidence on the issue of actual, peaceful and uninterrupted continuous possession of the person over the suit property for more than 12 years to the exclusion of true owner with the element of hostility in asserting the rights of ownership to the knowledge of the true owner, a case of adverse possession can be held to be made out which, in turn, results in depriving the true owner of his ownership rights in the property and vests the ownership rights of the property in the person who claims it. (See Dagada Bai(died per LRs v. Abbas (supra). 68. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of real owner’s title to the property claimed. Person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove who is the true owner and if such person is not sure who the true owner is, the question of them being in hostile possession as well as of denying the title of the true owner does not arise. Mere possession does not ripen into possessor title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. Mere possession does not ripen into possessor title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. Adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time namely, nec vi i.e, adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e., adequate in publicity and necprecarioi.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be considered. (see Uttam Chand (dead) v. Nathu Ram (dead) (supra). 69. A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession must establish both possession which is peaceful, open and continuous possession which meets the requirement of being nec vi nec claim and necprecario. To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse. These requirements have to be duly established first by adequate pleadings and second by leading sufficient evidence. Evidence, it is well settled, can only be adduced with reference to matters which are pleaded in a civil suit and in the absence of an adequate pleading, evidence by itself cannot supply the deficiency of a pleaded case. (see M.Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple- v. Suresh Das (supra). 70. In the instant case, the appellants did not admit the ownership of the 2nd respondent over the suit land, as such, the issue of adverse possession, in our opinion, could not have been tried successfully at the instance of the appellants as against the respondents 2 to 37.In view of above decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, when once the appellants are claiming to be in possession of the suit lands as tenants, they cannot maintain the suit for declaration of title by way of adverse possession, as the very concept of adverse possession is to be in possession of property adverse and hostile to the interest of the real owner. Therefore, the appellants miserably failed to prove that they are in continuous possession of the suit lands so also their claim over the suit lands by way of adverse possession. Therefore, the appellants miserably failed to prove that they are in continuous possession of the suit lands so also their claim over the suit lands by way of adverse possession. Hence, the points (c )& (d) are decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondents 2 to 37. 71. Point (e) e) Whether the judgments in LGC SR 1468/2007 and LGC SR No.1345/2009 and in LAOP Nos.1197 and 1203 of 2007 operates as resjudicata in the suit? Admittedly, the land to an extent of Acs.5.13 ½ gts in Sy.No.279 was acquired by the State Government under two notifications. On being referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 by the Land Acquisition Officer, for the decision of the Court with respect to the title and also for disbursement of the compensation, the LAOP Nos.1197 and 1203 of 2007 were registered on the file of II Additional District Judge, R.R.District. The respondent Nos.15,16, 18, 19 & one Gr.Ravinder Rao asserted their title over the suit land through 2nd respondent and got compensation paid to them vide order dated 15.04.2019 under Ex.B90 by the said Court. Even though the appellants are claiming adverse possession, the same was not challenged by the appellants 1 to 4 till date, which goes without saying that the findings of the II Additional District Judge have attained finality and accepted by the appellants 1 to 4. It is well settled principle of law that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct in the absence of a challenge. 72. In Sri GangaiVinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “31. Viewed in this manner, we think it is an inescapable conclusion that an appeal ought to have been filed by the Tenant even in respect of O.S. 5/78, for fear of inviting the rigours of res judicata as also for correcting the “dismissal” order. In our opinion, the Tenant had been completely non-suited once it was held that no cause of action had arisen in its favour and the suit was ‘dismissed’. Ignoring that finding and allowing it to become final makes that conclusion impervious to change. In Sheoparsen Singh vs. Ramnandan Prasad Singh, (1915-16) 43 I.A.91, the Privy Council opined – “Res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilized system of jurisprudence. Ignoring that finding and allowing it to become final makes that conclusion impervious to change. In Sheoparsen Singh vs. Ramnandan Prasad Singh, (1915-16) 43 I.A.91, the Privy Council opined – “Res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilized system of jurisprudence. This doctrine encapsulates the basic principle in all judicial systems which provide that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject matter between the same parties.” The raison d’etre and public policy on which Res judicata is predicated is that the party who has raised any aspect in a litigation and has had an Issue cast thereon, has lead evidence in that regard, and has argued on the point, remains bound by the curial conclusions once they attain finality. No party must be vexed twice for the same cause; it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; a judicial decision must be accepted as correct in the absence of a challenge. The aspect of law which now remains to be considered is whether filing of an Appeal against a common Judgment in one case, tantamounts to filing an appeal in all the matters. 73. In Ram Gobinda Daw v. Smt. H.Bhakta Bala Dassi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “20. In our opinion, the decision of this Court referred to above does not assist the appellants. It is now well established that where a dispute as to title to receive compensation amount has been referred to a court, a decree thereon not appealed from renders the question of title res-judicata in a suit between the same parties to the dispute. A party in such circumstances cannot be heard to say that the value of the subject matter on which the former decision was pronounced was comparatively so trifling that it was not worth their while to appeal from it. It is true that the test of resjudicata is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases but the previous decision must be one on a title in respect of which a dispute has been raised and which dispute was heard and finally decided by the court.” 74. Even though Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani (D2) represented by Sri. Even though Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani (D2) represented by Sri. Mallikarjuna Rao (D3) approached the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in LGC 24/2001 against the appellants, the same was dismissed on dated 19-4-2002, but admittedly, the appellants remained exparte to those proceedings. The certified copy of the judgment and decree in LGC 24/2001 are marked as Exs. A4 and A5. The Land Grabbing Court found that as the name of the applicant Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani is not mutated in the revenue records since the alleged date of allotment and also due to the non-filing of pahanies from 1967-68 to 1995-96, it was inferred that neither the applicant nor his Power of Attorney holder was put in the possession of property by the concerned authorities soon after the alleged allotment said to have been made in the year 1967 and the mutation was affected only in pursuance of orders dated 24-5-1997. The said Court also observed that the applicant Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani did not show any reasons for not taking steps for implementing his name in the revenue records soon after such allotments and that the certified copies of the Pahanies marked as Ex. A13 and A17 in that petition shows the name of the respondents Patti Ramaiah and others in the possessors’ column and gave a finding that the respondents therein Patti Ramaiah and others are in possession of the property. It was also observed by the said Court that when the land was allotted to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani/the 2nd respondent herein, either he or his GPA holder did not take any steps to evict the respondents from the schedule property. It was also observed by the bench that the applicant has not produced any document to show that he has been paying the revenue payable to the Government and that the applicant has filed the revenue receipt dated 2-11-1998 for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98 and that the applicant has not shown the single scrap of paper to show that he paid the revenue for the past 30 years from 1967-1997. The Bench also discussed about the proceedings of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 3-7-2001, which was marked as Ex. The Bench also discussed about the proceedings of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 3-7-2001, which was marked as Ex. A9 in that O.P and made an observation that if really possession was handed over to the applicant in the year 1968, he would have filed the relevant documents of delivery of possession. The Land Grabbing Court also discussed a letter dated 10-6-1968 addressed by the GPA holder of the applicant, which was addressed to the Tahsildar, stating that he has been enjoying the lands after taking possession from the authorities of custodian and requested to change the village records. The Bench also discussed the correspondence dated 11-9-1969, which is the office copy of a letter addressed by PW2 therein i.e., the GPA holder of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani stating that he took possession of the land including schedule property through the revenue Inspector on 29-9-1967. The bench also discussed that when it is stated that the possession was taken by the GPA holder of the applicant therein, he has not filed any document evidencing the delivery of possession by the custodian of evacuee properties. 75. Admittedly, One Mr. Kommula Ramachandra Reddy, an Advocate representing the appellants herein filed LGSR No.1468/2007 and on detailed discussion it was dismissed under the orders marked as Ex.B 50, Dt.7-11-2007’ Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of the LGSR.1468/2007, the applicant preferred Writ Petition No.2882/2008 and it was also dismissed under the orders dated 19-2-2008 marked as Ex.B 51. The review petition preferred vide WPMP No.11933/2008 was also dismissed under the orders marked dated 11-7-2008. The applicant representing the appellants herein carried the matters to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the special leave petition was also dismissed under the orders marked as Ex.B53 Dt.5-12-2008. Appellants herein filed LGSR No. 1345/2009 against 36 respondents and it was rejected at LGCSR stage at the threshold under the orders dated 26-4-2010 marked as Ex.B.56. The Bench held that in their anxiety to recover the possession from illegal occupants, the respondents in LGSR 1468/2007 filed LGC 24/2001 in this court. It was held by the Bench in LGSR 1345/2007 that the allotment orders in favour of the allottee Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and the GPA executed by the allottee Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani are subject matter of other proceedings and it was also observed that Mr. It was held by the Bench in LGSR 1345/2007 that the allotment orders in favour of the allottee Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and the GPA executed by the allottee Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani are subject matter of other proceedings and it was also observed that Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani was examined as a witness in LGC No. 24/2001 and the allegation of the appellants/plaintiffs herein that the person by name Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani is a fictitious person and is not in existence is not a tenable statement. 76. In LGSR No.1345/2009, it was discussed at length about counter affidavit of the District Collector on behalf of some of the respondents in the Writ Petition W.P No 2882/2008, wherein it was specifically stated that as Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani has migrated from Pakistan and settled at Bombay, the Government of India declared him as a refugee/displaced person and that on his application, the Government of India has allotted agricultural land. The Land Grabbing Court also discussed that the custodian of evacuee properties had allotted land under two allotment orders and that the Government has admitted about the issuing orders of allotment by the custodian of evacuee properties, Bombay in favour of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani which was evident from proceedings dated 3-7-2001 and observed that the applicants in LGSR 1345/2009/the plaintiffs herein contend almost each and every document filed by the respondents/defendants as fictitious and fabricated documents. The bench observed that the LGSR No.1468/2007 has been carried to the Honourable Apex Court of India and that with the same facts, the present LGSR 1345/2009 is filed by the appellants, whereas the earlier one was filed by their advocate. The bench in this matter observed that even though there are no triable issues in LGC No.24/2001 as the respondents remained exparte, even without framing a specific issue, the bench in LGC No.24/2001 has observed that the respondents herein have acquired their title by way of adverse possession, even in the absence of any material. 77. The bench in this matter observed that even though there are no triable issues in LGC No.24/2001 as the respondents remained exparte, even without framing a specific issue, the bench in LGC No.24/2001 has observed that the respondents herein have acquired their title by way of adverse possession, even in the absence of any material. 77. In LGSR 1345/2009, the Land Grabbing Court clearly observed that the observations made by the Special Court in LGC 24/2001 cannot be treated as a finding given on triable issues on which the applicants in LGSR 1345/2009, who are the respondents in LGC 24/2001 can claim legal possession and it was also observed that the exparte judgment does not perse confer or give a stamp of approval of their lawful possession over the property. It was also observed by the Bench that the Government of India conceded the two allotment letters/orders in favour of the respondent No.2/Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwaniin W.P.No. 2882/2008, wherein it was specifically stated that as Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani has migrated from Pakistan and settled at Bombay, the Government of India declared him as a refugee/displaced person and that on his application, the Government of India has allotted agricultural land. The Bench also discussed that the custodian of evacuee properties had allotted land under two allotment orders and that the Government has admitted about the issuing orders of allotment by the custodian of evacuee properties, Bombay in favour of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani which was evident from proceedings dated 3-7-2001. The Bench in this matter observed that even though there are no triable issues in LGC No.24/2001 as the respondents remained exparte, even without framing a specific issue, the bench in LGC No.24/2001 has observed that the respondents herein have acquired their title by way of adverse possession, even in the absence of any material. 78. To sum up even though the appellants filed LGC SR Nos.1468 of 2007 and LGC SR No.1345 of 2009, the Land Grabbing Court rejected their claim over the suit lands vide judgment dated 07.11.2007 in LGC SR No.1468 of 2007. W.P.No.2882 of 2002 filed against said judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.02.2008 and SLP (Civil) No.15720 of 2008 filed against the judgment of this Court was also dismissed on 05.12.2008. W.P.No.2882 of 2002 filed against said judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.02.2008 and SLP (Civil) No.15720 of 2008 filed against the judgment of this Court was also dismissed on 05.12.2008. After successfully failed to prove their title up to Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellants filed LGC SR No.1345 of 2009, but the special Court dismissed the same on 26.04.2010 observing that the appellants failed to primafacie establish their title over the suit lands. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred W.P.No.31967 of 2010 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 01.04.2021, became final as the same was not challenged by the appellants till date. 79. When there are two conflicting decrees the last should prevail on the ground that in the eye of law it is binding between the parties and the previous decree should be taken as pleaded in the latter suit and not given effect to, or must henceforth be; regarded as dead. (See Rajani Kumar Mitra v. Ajmaddin Bhuiya (supra) and Kunjan v. Janaki (supra). Therefore the decisions rendered by the Land Grabbing Court in LGCSR No.1468 of 2007 and LGCNo.1345 of 2009 so also the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, R.R.District in LAOP Nos.1197 & 1203 of 2007 operates as res judicata as against the appellants. In view of above facts and circumstances, this issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondents 2 to 37. 80. It is also pertinent to note that in similar circumstances this Court had occasion to consider a case between Darshanam swami @ Swamaiah Vs. Rithu Malhotra @ Rithu Kapoor (supra). The facts and circumstances in the said case are similar to that of the present appeals. The land, which was in dispute in the above cited case is also a part and parcel of the same property, which belonged to the migrant Mr. Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung. O.S.No. 143/2002 was filed by the appellants in the said decision for declaration of title contending that they have acquired their title by way of adverse possession in respect of an extent of 7.03guntas in S.No. 289 of Puppalguda village and also for Perpetual injunction defendant therein, who is the respondent in the cited decision injunction suit against the appellant. O.S.No. 143/2002 was filed by the appellants in the said decision for declaration of title contending that they have acquired their title by way of adverse possession in respect of an extent of 7.03guntas in S.No. 289 of Puppalguda village and also for Perpetual injunction defendant therein, who is the respondent in the cited decision injunction suit against the appellant. The detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case shows that it was never in the mind of the appellants, who are said to be the occupants that they have been in possession adverse to that of the owner and their claim throughout was that they were the tenants. It was also discussed that there was no animous at any time that they have been in possession in their right and observed that it need not be reiterated that the possession must be open, peaceful and hostile enough to be capable of being known by parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of adverse possession actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action. It was also observed that what all they claimed was that they were tenants and they be allotted the land as they are poor Harijans and this was after knowing that the property was vested in the custodian and from then onwards they have been agitating in various courts that they be allotted the land and at no point of time they asserted title and held that it cannot be said that they have acquired the land by way of adverse possession and on going through the entire evidence they did not find any illegality or irregularity in appreciation of facts or law in this regard. 81. The facts and circumstances in that case are similar to that of the present case. The appellants herein have asserted their possession as in one way that they are claiming as absolute owners and on the other way they are claiming to be in possession of the property as tenants. If the appellants claim that they are tenants of the property their possession is permissive and not hostile to that of the real owner i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 initially and respondents 4 to 36 subsequently. If they claim the possession as absolute owners, they cannot claim title by way of adverse possession. If the appellants claim that they are tenants of the property their possession is permissive and not hostile to that of the real owner i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 initially and respondents 4 to 36 subsequently. If they claim the possession as absolute owners, they cannot claim title by way of adverse possession. Evidently, the allotment orders issued by the Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Properties have not been challenged in any forum and they are not cancelled, as such, they holds good till today. That apart, the allotment made to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani was asserted in ever subsequent proceedings and the possession of the extents mentioned in the allotment orders was found to be delivered long back. It is settled law that the entries in the revenue records does not constitute a record for possession. As already observed supra, the declaration of the lands as evacuee lands is not questioned by any of the occupants and Settlement Commissioner of the custodian of evacuee properties declared allottee as the owner and they became final. 82. Even though the correctness of the General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao-3rd respondent by Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani-2nd respondent was described as a fake document by the appellants, as discussed supra, the said contention was disproved supra as Mr. Ravinder Balwani, appeared before the court below and the said fact is also proved through C.W.3-District Registrar, who deposed that the District Registrar has received the GPA dated 14-12-1966 and the validation proceedings vide file bearing No. 5143/G1/1998, dated 11-12-1998, which are marked as Ex. A3 and A53. He also deposed that the office of the District Registrar, R.R District was called to examine and confirm as to whether the GPA is a registered document as provided Under Section 60 of Indian Registration Act, 1908. He deposed that as per the proceedings vide letter dated 6-7-2012, he submitted a report that as per the office records in file No. 5143/G1/1998, dated 11-12-1998, the document styled as General Power of Attorney executed on 14-12-1966 by Mr. Ravinder Kumar S/o. Tarumal Balwani, R/O. Bombay authorizing Sri. P. Mallikarjuna Rao. S/o. Viswanadha Rao, R/o. Mettiguda has been validated in their office. He exhibited Ex. C 15 letter issued by him. He also deposed that while issuing Ex. C 15, he has verified Exs. Ravinder Kumar S/o. Tarumal Balwani, R/O. Bombay authorizing Sri. P. Mallikarjuna Rao. S/o. Viswanadha Rao, R/o. Mettiguda has been validated in their office. He exhibited Ex. C 15 letter issued by him. He also deposed that while issuing Ex. C 15, he has verified Exs. A3 and A53, which are the Power of Attorney, dated 14-12-1966 and the validation proceedings. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that Ex. B12, the General Power of Attorney is an authenticated document, properly stamped, but not a registered one. He also deposed that the Power of Attorney is not a compulsorily registrable document and the holder of power under an authenticated document can sell the property if the document gives such power. Therefore, the argument of the appellants that the General Power of attorney holder of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani, is not empowered to sell the properties, cannot be accepted. This point is answered accordingly. 83. Point Nos.(f)& (g): (f) Whether the appellants are entitled to maintain suit for recovery of possession when they are claiming to be in adverse possession over the suit schedule property? g) Whether the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property and if so, they are entitled for perpetual injunction for against the appellants? In one of the issues framed in both the injunction suits by the Court below is whether the suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor is maintainable in the light of the dispute regarding the authenticity of the documents of title and ownership of the plaintiffs raised by the defendants. The elaborate discussion regarding the correctness of the allotment orders in favour of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani marked as Exs. B11 and B12 is no where doubted by the Government machinery and they attained finality, as the same were neither cancelled nor challenged by the appellants before any forum and those holds good till date. In view of the filing of the comprehensive suit and the clubbing of those injunction suits in the title suit the maintainability of injunction suits need not be doubted. When there is any threat about any interference in respect of property in the possession of a person, the suit for injunction to protect his possession is maintainable. 84. A perusal of evidence of D.Ws. When there is any threat about any interference in respect of property in the possession of a person, the suit for injunction to protect his possession is maintainable. 84. A perusal of evidence of D.Ws. 2 to 5 who are plaintiffs in the injunction suit goes to show that they all in categorical terms deposed the series of sale transactions passed from the original allotee Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani through his GPA holder Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao. They also filed the certified copies of the registered title deeds in their favour, the electricity bills, property tax payment receipts, the mutation proceedings, pahanies and the pattedar passbooks in their favour. The certified copies of the title deeds of the present title holders and their link documents are marked as Exs. B15, B16, 821, 828, B29 and B30. The pattedar passbooks in favour of the defendants 15, 16, 17 are marked as B22, B23, B31 to B33. The respondent No.15, who is examined as DW.4 deposed that he constructed compound wall and two rooms by obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayath. The 4th plaintiff in OS.254/2012 said to have constructed a compound wall and rooms in a part of the property and the certified copy of the proceedings and the approved plan issued by Puppalguda. Gram Panchayat is marked as Ex.B34. The oral evidence of D.W.5 corroborated with Ex. B34 is sufficient to hold that in pursuance of their title and possession, the purchasers have made constructions. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, no where in the plaint it was mentioned about when the appellants were dispossessed from the scheduled properties and also from the evidence of PW1 and 2, it is not possible to infer when they were dispossessed from the schedule property. More over the allotment made by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, Office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not canceled and holds good till today and the Government authorities of the Central and State recognized the allotment made to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Balwani and the sales made by him are not found to be illegal and the mutation was also made in the revenue records in favour of the subsequent purchasers, who are the plaintiffs 3 to 6 in OS.264/2012 and plaintiffs 8 and 9 in OS.265/2012. OS.264/2012 and 265/2012 are entitled for the perpetual Injunction against the defendants therein. 85. OS.264/2012 and 265/2012 are entitled for the perpetual Injunction against the defendants therein. 85. In view of findings in points (a) to (e), the appellants are not entitled to maintain suit for recovery of possession as they miserably failed to prove their continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit lands. On the other hand, the respondents 2 to 37 prove their possession and title, as such, they are entitled for perpetual injunction against the appellants. Therefore, points (f) and (g) are answered in favour of the respondents 2 to 37 and against the appellants. 86. Point (h): To what relief? In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Common Judgment, as such, these appeals fail and accordingly dismissed confirming the Common Judgment of the trial Court dated 31.12.2015 in OS Nos.821 of 2010, 264 of 2012 and 265 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending in these appeals shall stand dismissed.