JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.855 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, the plaintiff preferred this appeal. 2. The suit O.S.No.855 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff-Mogulla Narasimha Reddy seeking to declare him as owner and possessor of the land and for perpetual injunction against T.L.Badraiah-first defendant and T.L.Pentaiah-second defendant in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.364 situated at Pudoor Village and Gram Panchayat, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter, ‘the suit schedule land’) and it is bounded by North: Survey H.No.363/1 (Part), 363/2 (Part) belongs to Thokala Ramaiah, South: Government land; East: Land belongs to B.Narasimha Reddy and stone crusher; and West: Land in Sy.No.364(P), 363/1(P) of M.Vidhyavathi. He would assert that he is in exclusive, uninterrupted, continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land since more than twenty years and that his name reflects in the pahani patrika of 1992-93 ROR of the Pudur Village. His physical possession over the suit schedule land is open to the knowledge of the defendants and that he has been exercising his right of ownership over it. He would further submit that he cultivated the suit schedule land and raised the vegetable crop, maize etc and that he fenced the land with barbed wire and that even now the land is in his physical possession and enjoyment. He would also assert that he acquired title by adverse possession and his possession was to the knowledge of the real owners and that the defendants are making efforts to dispossess him from the suit schedule land on 19.11.2006, 26.11.2006 and on 28.11.2006 by force. He would also assert that the names of the defendants are erroneously entered into the pahani patrika and that the Mandal Revenue Officer without verifying the revenue records wrongly entered the names of the defendants and that when he came to know about the same, he gave an application to delete their names and after conducting an enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer held that the names of the defendants from possessor column should be deleted vide Proceedings No.E/7393/2004 dated 24.03.2005 and amendment was also made in the record of rights by deleting the names of the defendants. He would also state that as the defendants are still claiming the suit schedule land, he is advised to file a suit for declaration and as such he filed the present suit seeking declaration of title by adverse possession, to continue him in the possession of the land and also sought for perpetual injunction. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, while denying all the material allegations they would assert that they purchased the suit schedule land through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.7653 of 1991. Since then onwards they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. Plaintiff is owner of a part of the land in Sy.Nos.363/1 and 363/2 and his wife is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.3.13 guntas in Sy.No.364 and also land in Sy.No.363/1 and that the said property of the plaintiff and his wife is situated exactly behind the suit schedule land belonging to the defendants. They also assert that taking undue advantage of the existence of their land behind the suit schedule land, the plaintiff made an impression that he is in possession of the suit schedule land and manipulated the revenue officials and obtained mutation proceedings in collusion with them and that several allegations were made against the said Mandal Revenue Officer for passing illegal orders, and as such the defendants preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, when they came to know about the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, they tried to get the certified copy of the order, but the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a letter dated 17.02.2007 saying that the records pertaining to the said proceedings were not available. Basing on the said letter, the defendants preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Appeal No.A2/1122 of 2007. The defendants would also assert that they gave an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for demarcation of the boundaries of the land in Sy.No.364, but the plaintiff did not cooperate and further he also filed a caveat. They would also assert that even after receiving the caveat, they approached the plaintiff and informed him that being an adjacent land owner it is not proper to make illegal claims over the suit schedule land and in spite of it, the plaintiff is making claim over the land as a prescriptive right basing on the entries in the revenue records. In fact, the plaintiff is not entitled for the same as there is no continuity or uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. They would also assert that the suit schedule land is left uncultivated since long time and that they are the absolute owners of the land and the plaintiff has no manner of right over the same. They would assert that for the first time the plaintiff emphasize his rights over the land by filing caveat in the month of February, 2006 and as such the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit schedule land for more than twenty years is false and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W1 and the other two persons were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A1 to A18 on his behalf. The third defendant alone is examined as D.W1 and marked Exs.B1 to B36 on his behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even in case of non-grant of relief of declaration, the Court is entitled to grant relief of injunction basing on the possession of the plaintiff. He would further argue that the trial Court misread and misconstrued the prayer sought for by him. He would also assert that though the appellant sought declaration and injunction, he perfected his title by adverse possession and that the plaintiff established title and possession for more than twelve years and the same is animus to the respondents and he also filed Exs.A1 to A16 to show the possession of the appellant and that Exs.B14 to B17 were set aside under Ex.A16 and that the trial Court overlooked Exs.A17 and Ex.A18 filed by the plaintiff. The sale deed under Ex.B34 dated 12.11.1991 in favour of the first and second defendants does not confer any right, title or interest upon the first and second defendants and that no possession was handed over to the respondents. The sale deed under Ex.B34 dated 12.11.1991 in favour of the first and second defendants does not confer any right, title or interest upon the first and second defendants and that no possession was handed over to the respondents. Learned counsel would further argue that as regards Exs.B35 and 36-decree and judgment in O.S.No.598 of 2010, the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. Learned counsel would also argue that Exs.B19 to B31 are subsequent documents and cannot be looked into. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court reported in KENCHARAYAPPA V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2015(3) ALD 487 stating to the effect that the Tahsildar or the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to alter or correct the entries without any notice and finally requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court. 8. The trial Court observed that though the suit is filed for declaration of title based on adverse possession, the plaintiff has not sought for any consequential relief, and as such, the same is not maintainable. It was also observed that as the suit was filed in the year 2006, it must be proved by the plaintiff that he has been in an uninterrupted, peaceful and open possession of the suit schedule land to the knowledge of the public including defendants for over twelve years, and thus the plaintiff should be in continuous possession since 1993, but he did not file pahanies for the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-02 and 2003-04 and that even if the pahanies filed by the plaintiff is accepted as it is, it establishes that he is in occupation of the suit schedule land some years intermittently but not continuously for statutory period as claimed by him. It was also observed in Para No.12 that though the counsel for plaintiff insisted for grant of permanent injunction, it was noticed that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title and when there is no prayer to that effect, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit relief. It was also observed in Para No.12 that though the counsel for plaintiff insisted for grant of permanent injunction, it was noticed that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title and when there is no prayer to that effect, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit relief. The trial Court relied upon case law and also considered the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.598 of 2010 and ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to prove the continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land over the statutory period and he cannot depend upon the weaknesses of the defendants and accordingly dismissed the suit. 9. Perusal of the plaint shows that the suit is filed for declaration of title. As the plaintiff contended that he is in possession of the same, requested the Court to continue his possession over the suit schedule land and he also sought for injunction. The trial Court without noticing the same properly, observed that no relief sought for possession in fact the plaintiff sought a consequential relief for possession and injunction and so also the trial Court observed that O.S.No.598 of 2010 is filed for injunction. In fact, the said suit is filed for declaration of title and for injunction. 10. Wife and children of B.P.Narsing Rao filed O.S.No.598 of 2010 against the defendants herein and also the plaintiff herein for declaration and permanent injunction. As the defendants therein remained ex parte, the suit was decreed and permanent injunction was granted. During the pendency of the appeal proceedings, the first and second defendants herein died and his wife and children were brought on record as their legal representatives. T.L.Bhadraiah died on 30.10.2017. In the counter-affidavit filed by Mogulla Narasimha Reddy in an unnumbered I.A. in A.S.No.670 of 2015, he submitted that as the decree in O.S.No.598 of 2010 was an ex parte decree, they filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed and thereafter the vendors of the petitioners withdrawn the said suit. 11. The trial Court observed that copy of Appeal No.1122 of 2007 filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer was not filed by the defendants. 11. The trial Court observed that copy of Appeal No.1122 of 2007 filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer was not filed by the defendants. In fact, they filed an application in I.A.No.2161 of 2015 in A.S.No.670 of 2015 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive the following documents as additional evidence in this appeal: 1) The copy of the appeal No.1122 of 2007 filed before the RDO by the petitioners father and the 1st defendant; 2) Letter dated 21.01.2012 complaining against the non-tracing of the petitioners appeal, addressed to the District Collector and RDO and Lokayuktha; 3) Copy of the writ petition filed by the petitioners senior paternal uncle in W.P.No.9091 of 2015; 4) The copy of certified extract of the sale deed dt.18.09.1990 registered as document No.8408 of 1990. 12. As the above documents were not available with the defendants during the pendency of proceedings before the trial Court, I feel it reasonable to receive the same as additional evidence and accordingly this application is ordered. 13. I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed by the petitioners-third party seeking to implead them as Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the main appeal as well as in I.A.No.2009 of 2015 and it was ordered on 03.01.2022. 14. P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that there were no fixed boundaries between the land in Sy.No.363 and the suit schedule land in Sy.No.364. The suit schedule land is situated on the East of Sy.No.363 and that to reach the land in Sy.No.363 one has to go only through the suit schedule land. He also deposed that he do not know whether the first and second defendants purchased the suit schedule land under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1991. It was suggested to him that in the year 2006 Surveyor informed that the first and second defendants applied for survey and fixing of boundaries to the suit schedule land, for which he stated that as there was standing crop in the land he objected for survey and last crop was raised in the year 2012. It was suggested to him that to stall the survey proceedings he filed the suit and at present there was no crop in the land. He further deposed that he never cultivated the suit schedule land and he was never in possession of it, he denied the same. It was suggested to him that to stall the survey proceedings he filed the suit and at present there was no crop in the land. He further deposed that he never cultivated the suit schedule land and he was never in possession of it, he denied the same. It was suggested to him that in Ex.A8 his name is mentioned as kabjadhar in Column No.13. It was also suggested to him that the Mandal Revenue Officer who passed an order passed under Ex.A16 was surrendered to Government by the Collector on the allegation of corruption, for which the plaintiff would depose that he do not know the same. In his further cross-examination he deposed that he do not remember whether any steps were taken by him to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.598 of 2010. 15. Mr.Ravi Prakash, S/o. Late T.Pentaiah was examined as D.W.1. During his cross-examination he admitted that Exs.B19 to 33 pertaining to the period subsequent to the filing of the suit. He also deposed that the names of his father and uncle were entered in the revenue records as enjoyers of the suit schedule land from Ex.B12 onwards i.e. 1995-96. He further deposed that the plaintiff has got lands in Sy.No.363 which is in the West of the suit schedule land. He also deposed that Exs.B1 to B7 shows only part of the suit schedule land. The Mandal Revenue Officer in his proceedings dated 24.03.2005 stated that C.Mogulla Narasimha Reddy executed sale deed vide Document No.1654 of 1991 dated 21.11.1991 and as such the name of Lakki Reddy Laxmi should be deleted from the pattadar column as her pass book was issued on 22.06.1998. He also stated that in Sy.No.354 an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas in the possession column the names of T.L.Badraiah and T.L.Pentaiah was included. But on verification of pahani and possession as well as spot inspection, Mogulla Narsimha Reeddy is in possession and cultivating the land to an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas of Pudur Village, and as such, directed the Panchayat Secretary of the village to incorporate his name in Sy.No.363/2 in an extent of Ac.9.05 guntas and also in Sy.No.363 an extent of 8.00 guntas of Pudur Village. The sale deed executed by Yenugu Narayana Reddy in favour of T.L.Badraiah and T.L.Pentaiah on 21.11.1991 for a sale consideration of Rs.96,000/- is filed. 16. The sale deed executed by Yenugu Narayana Reddy in favour of T.L.Badraiah and T.L.Pentaiah on 21.11.1991 for a sale consideration of Rs.96,000/- is filed. 16. In I.A.No.2 of 2020 the Certificate of Ownership issued under Section 38-E issued in favour of Tokala Ramaiah, S/o. Balaiah was filed and basing on the said certificate Tokala Ramaiah is the owner of the land from 01.01.1973. The Joint Collector vide proceedings in Case No.B4/9668/75 dated 20.11.1979 confirmed orders of lower Court. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.1028 of 1981 was preferred but it was dismissed. 17. The legal representatives of B.P.Narsing Rao filed an application before the Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, against T.L.Bhadraiah and T.L.Ravi Prakash and in an order dated 01.07.2017 he observed that one Thokala Ramaiah is the protected tenant of an agricultural land in Sy.Nos.363/1 and 364 and ownership certificate under Section 38-E was granted in his favour and possession was also handed over by conducting panchanama dated 03.11.1982 as per the orders of the Tahsildar in Case No.A5/10554 of 1980 and thereafter he sold the land to B.P.Narsing Rao vide Document No.5860 of 1983 dated 09.08.1983. He died intestate on 22.10.1998 leaving behind his wife and children. They filed O.S.No.598 of 2010 and it was decreed on 16.10.2012 and thus they requested for mutation of their names in the ROR Register. But, in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.38313 of 2015 dated 25.11.2015 it was kept in abeyance. After receiving notice, T.L.Ravi Prakash filed an objection petition on 26.11.2014 stating that his father along with two others are the original owners, pattadars and possessors of the land in Sy.No.364/2 and 3 of an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas towards his father share, which was purchased by way of sale deed bearing Document No.7653 of 1991 dated 21.11.1991 and the present petitioners are claiming land in Sy.No.364 of an extent of Ac.11.13 guntas which is different from their share of land in O.S.No.598 of 2010 and as they have not received any notices, they obtained ex parte judgment. T.L.Bhadraiah filed an objection petition on 04.07.2015 with the very same averments. T.L.Bhadraiah and T.L.Ravi Prakash filed W.P.No.38313 of 2015 before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition by its order dated 25.11.2015. T.L.Bhadraiah filed an objection petition on 04.07.2015 with the very same averments. T.L.Bhadraiah and T.L.Ravi Prakash filed W.P.No.38313 of 2015 before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition by its order dated 25.11.2015. Again T.L.Bhadraiah and T.L.Ravi Prakash filed another application on 23.01.2017, which was taken on file vide File No.B/137 of 2017 seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors and the office issued notices to both the parties. At this stage, respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein filed W.P.No.14534 of 2017 in which this Court passed orders on 21.04.2017. As another application was also filed by the respondents, it was held that File No.B/137 of 2017 has become infructuous and orders were passed in File No.E/1211 of 2013. 18. The flow of the title from the pattadar is as follows: Thokala Ramaiah after obtaining 38-E certificate on 10.06.1975 in respect of the land in Sy.No.363 to an extent of Ac.6.25 guntas and Sy.No.364 to an extent of Ac.20.09 guntas, sold an extent of Ac.3.29 guntas in Sy.No.363/1 and Ac.11.13 guntas in Sy.No.364 of Pudur Viullage to B.P.Narsing Rao through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5860 of 1983 dated 09.08.1983 and he died intestate on 22.10.1998 leaving petitioners as his legal heirs and successors. They are relying on 38-E certificate, which was confirmed by the Joint Collector in Appeal No.B4/9668/1975 dated 20.11.1979 and also confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1028 of 1991 by its order dated 01.09.1982, and thus, the petitioners are entitled for incorporation of their names in the revenue records as pattadars and finally the Joint Collector ordered for deletion of the names of the respondents in respect of the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.3.29 guntas in Sy.No.363/1 and Ac.11.13 guntas in Sy.No.364 of Pudur Viullage and directed incorporate the names of the petitioners. The said order was passed by the Joint Collector as per the directions of this Court in the writ petitions mentioned supra. Two appeals were preferred against the said order. By a common order dated 07.01.2019 the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, and he also passed two individual proceedings dated 01.02.2019. The resolutions passed by the Winfab Equipments Private Limited and Vivala Cartons Private Limited are also filed. 19. Two appeals were preferred against the said order. By a common order dated 07.01.2019 the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, and he also passed two individual proceedings dated 01.02.2019. The resolutions passed by the Winfab Equipments Private Limited and Vivala Cartons Private Limited are also filed. 19. Coming to the facts of the case, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title by adverse possession on the ground that he is in possession of the suit schedule land from the past twenty years. In support of his contention he filed pahani patrikas and relied upon a case law reported in RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL V/s. MANJIT KAUR, (2019) 8 SCC 729 , in which the Hon’ble Apex Court explained in detail regarding ‘adverse possession’, which is as follows: ‘The statute does not define adverse possession. It is a common law concept, the period of which has been prescribed statutorily under the law of limitation in Article 65 as 12 years. Law of limitation only deals with limitation to sue and extinguishment of rights. The operation of the statute of limitation in giving a title is merely negative; it extinguishes the right and title of the dispossessed owner and leaves the occupant with a title gained by the fact of possession and resting on the infirmity of the right of others to eject him. The operation of the statute of limitation in giving a title is merely negative; it extinguishes the right and title of the dispossessed owner and leaves the occupant with a title gained by the fact of possession and resting on the infirmity of the right of others to eject him. “Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner.” “Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession.” A person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the original owner, and if the original owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed under the statute of limitation applicable to the case, his rights is forever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.” ‘The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec claim i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge, visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. The mere assertion of title by itself may not be sufficient unless the plaintiff proves animus possidendi. “Specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper-owner, to the adverse possessor.’ 20. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. The mere assertion of title by itself may not be sufficient unless the plaintiff proves animus possidendi. “Specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper-owner, to the adverse possessor.’ 20. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent also relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in KENCHARYAPPA V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, W.P.No.2913 of 2015 decided on 12.02.2015 in which it was held that as per Sections 3 to 5 and 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 the Tahsildar is not vested with any powers to make corrections either suo motu or on an application except at the time of making entries for the first time in terms of the notification issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act. Any corrections in relation to the entries could be made in the given circumstances satisfying Section 3(3) of the Act within one year. If the case requiring corrections of the revenue records beyond the time limit of one year, necessary orders can be passed only by the District Collector in exercise of revisional powers. Therefore, learned counsel would contend that the Mandal Revenue Officer is not authorized to make corrections in the entries. 21. The defendants in the suit relied upon the registered sale deed executed in their favour and also stated that the plaintiff is the owner for a part of the land in Sy.Nos.363/1 and 363/2 and his wife is the owner of the land in Sy.Nos.363/1 and 364. The defendants also submitted that they gave an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for demarcation of the land and even in the cross-examination the plaintiff deposed that in the year 2006 Surveyor informed him that the first and second defendants applied for survey and fixing of boundaries of the suit schedule land and as there was crop in the land the plaintiff objected for survey. It was also suggested to the plaintiff that the land is not fit for cultivation. Defendants further stated that the property of the plaintiff and his wife is exactly behind the suit schedule land, which belongs to the defendants. It was also suggested to the plaintiff that the land is not fit for cultivation. Defendants further stated that the property of the plaintiff and his wife is exactly behind the suit schedule land, which belongs to the defendants. But, taking undue advantage of the same, he manipulated the revenue records and after knowing the same, the defendants preferred appeal against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer. However, perusal of the record would clinchingly prove that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants made any efforts before the trial Court for demarcation of the suit schedule land either by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner or the Surveyor when there is a dispute regarding the demarcation of the land. The defendants stated that they filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, but they have not taken any steps before the trial Court. The contention of the defendants is that the land of the plaintiff and the land of the defendants are totally different. Even as per the documents available on record would clearly show that the extent of the land in Sy.No.364 is Ac.8.00 guntas, in fact it is more than that. Even in the boundaries, the plaintiff stated that on the northern side Sy.Nos.363/1 Part, 363/2 Part and 364 Part belongs to Thokala Ramaiah are located. When the plaintiff approached the Court for declaration of title by adverse possession, it is for him to establish his case. He filed pahani patrikas to show that he is in continuous and uninterrupted possession. On perusal of the record it is clear that he was a possessor in adangal pahani for the year 1996-97-Ex.A3 the names of the defendants were recorded for Ac.8.00 guntas and the adangal for the year 1997-98 the names of the defendants were shown as pattadars. Registered sale deed was also executed in their favour. From the above it is clear that the plaintiff failed to prove his uninterrupted and continuous possession over the suit schedule land and the conduct of the plaintiff that he objected for demarcation of the land also speaks volumes. 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limini and is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limini and is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final judgment.