Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1456 (AP)

A. Venkatappa (Died) v. Avula Venkatamma

2023-11-16

BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.5 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Madanapalle are the appellants, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the 1st plaintiff Mr.A.Venkatappa against the defendants, seeking relief of declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property, and for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff died, and then the appellant Nos.2 and 3 were added as plaintiffs being the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff, who continued the suit. 2. The appellants and the respondents hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants, seeking relief of declaration of their title in respect of plaint schedule property, and for permanent injunction. The plaint schedule property is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.57 cents, which is shown in the plaint is extracted hereunder: SCHEDULE Chittoor District, Madanapalle Sub-District lands at Ramireddigaripalle, S.No.21/3, 0-57 cents, out of 1-18 cents, bounded on: East : Land of defendants and Reddeppa; South : Gangarappa Vimaladevi; West : G.Vimala Devi; North : Land of plaintiff. After sub-division 21/3A. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to two brothers, namely Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu and Mr.Naganna Gowdu, sons of Ellappa Gowdu. The plaintiffs submit that both brothers got divided the plaint schedule property and in the division the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Mr.Naganna Gowdu, father of the 1st plaintiff about 70 or 75 years back. Since the date of division, the father of the 1st plaintiff had been in possession of the plaint schedule property during his life time, and thereafter the 1st plaintiff continued to be in possession of the plaint schedule property and perfected his title by way of adverse possession and ouster of defendants as he was having been in possession of the same openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly over the period of seven decades. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that said Mr.Dasanna Gowdu died, leaving behind him his two sons by name Mr.Gangulappa, who died leaving behind him his wife/1st defendant and two sons by name Mr.Venkatramana/2nd defendant and Mr.Venkataswamy, who is no more. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that said Mr.Dasanna Gowdu died, leaving behind him his two sons by name Mr.Gangulappa, who died leaving behind him his wife/1st defendant and two sons by name Mr.Venkatramana/2nd defendant and Mr.Venkataswamy, who is no more. They submit that Mr.Venkatramana/2nd defendant and Mr.Venkataswamy got divided their portion of the properties, which is situated adjacent to the plaint schedule property on eastern side, which fell to the share of Mr.Venkataswamy. They also submit that taking into consideration of their long possession and enjoyment, the land also sub-divided and the plaint schedule property was sub-divided as S.No.21/3A and the land of the defendants as S. No.21/3C, but sub-division is not reflected in 10(1) account maintained by the Revenue authorities. The plaintiffs alleged that with a view to develop his lands, he dug bore-well in the plaint schedule property, which got good spring, wherein the defendants have demanded to give share, for which they refused, due to that they sent letters to Revenue authorities and Bank claiming title in the plaint schedule property, where bore-well was sunk. Hence, suit is filed for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction. 4. The 2nd defendant filed written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 by filing a memo. It is the contention of the 2nd defendant that Mr.Nagappa Gowdu and Mr.Dasanna Gowdu are the sons of Mr.Ellappa Gowdu, out of them Mr.Nagappa Gowdu, who is the eldest son got divided with Mr.Dasanna Gowdy about 90 years back, and died about 60 years back, by that time the marriage of the 1st defendant with Mr.Gangulappa was not performed. He submits that Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu got divided long back, who was living separately and said Dasanna Gowdu has purchased the plaint schedule property for a valuable consideration from one Mr.K.Chenganna, son of Nallappa Reddy, who is no other than his grand-father under registered sale deed, dtd. 28/4/1915 (Ex.A13/registration copy of sale deed). They submit that said Mr.Dasanna Gowdu alone was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property purchased under original of Ex.A13, and said Mr.Dasanna Gowdu had four daughters and three sons, but not only son Mr.Gangulappa as alleged in the plaint. 28/4/1915 (Ex.A13/registration copy of sale deed). They submit that said Mr.Dasanna Gowdu alone was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property purchased under original of Ex.A13, and said Mr.Dasanna Gowdu had four daughters and three sons, but not only son Mr.Gangulappa as alleged in the plaint. They also stated the Genealogical tree of Mr.Dasanna Gowdu family, which reads as under: The 2nd defendant submits that after the death of Mr.Dasanna Gowdu, his sons Mr.Gangulappa, Mr.Venkata Swamy and Mr.Chinnappa succeeded to the properties of Mr.Dasanna Gowdu, including the plaint schedule property, who got 1/3rd share each who were in exclusive possession of the same by paying land revenue. It is also the contention of the 2nd defendant that the branch of Mr.Naganna Gowdu has no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. He submits that Mr.Avula Chinnappa, son of Dasanna Gowdu died issueless and his wife Smt Lakshmidevamma has executed a registered Relinquishment Deed on 16/5/1961 (Ex.B2) in favour of Mr.Gangulappa and Mr.Venkataswamy by receiving valuable consideration of Rs.500.00 and put them in possession of entire land belongs to the family of Mr.Dasanna Gowdu and left the village. The 2nd defendant also pleaded that his father Mr.Gangulappa and his brother Mr.Venkataswamy are entitled to half share in the suit schedule property, who have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land and they also perfected their title by way of adverse possession, but the plaintiffs have deliberately hiding the truth and filed frivolous suit, though they have no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. They submit that when the plaintiffs tried to trespass into the land and falsely trying to occupy the land by creating Charge over the plaint schedule property, they got issued notice to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Madanapalle and requested not to sanction loan. (Office copy of notice dtd. 9/10/1992/Ex.B3 filed). He submits that the father of the 1st plaintiff had two sons and one daughter, due to that the 1st plaintiff alone is not entitled to succeed the properties of his father-Mr.Nagappa and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He prays to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues at the time of pronouncing the Judgment:- 1. "Whether the plaintiff has right and title to the suit schedule property? 2. He prays to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues at the time of pronouncing the Judgment:- 1. "Whether the plaintiff has right and title to the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. To what relief"? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1. "Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2. Whether the suit relief is not properly valued and insufficient Court fee is paid on the suit relief claimed"? 6. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined. Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 were examined. Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 7. On the material and evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek declaration of their title and permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property, as they proved ouster of the defendants from the plaint schedule property. 8. Against the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants have presented AS.No.17 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Madanapalle, which was allowed by the first Appellate Court, setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to plead and prove that the plaint schedule property is joint family property, failed to prove ouster of co-owners and failed to prove the plea of adverse possession. 9. In these circumstances, the present Second Appeal is presented by the appellants/plaintiffs. 10. I have heard learned Counsel Mr.G.V.Sriram Murthy, representing on behalf of Mr.M.S.T.Raju, learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel Mr.Ravi Teja, representing on behalf of Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the respondents. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title and injunction based on plea of adverse possession, which they proved by filing Ex.A1/true copy of Record of Rights (ROR), which confirmed by PW.2/Village Administrative Officer by producing original, which failed to consider by the learned Appellate Judge. He would further submit that the plaintiffs can seek declaration of their title basing on adverse possession, which is not a bar in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further submit that the plaintiffs can seek declaration of their title basing on adverse possession, which is not a bar in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that by producing the revenue records, which proved long possession of the plaintiffs, which also discussed by the learned trial Judge and the appellants are entitled to seek declaration of their title and permanent injunction. He relied on following decisions: 1) K.Rajeshwar Reddy and others vs. N.Laxmikantam and others. 2002 (4) ALT 632 , wherein it is held at Paras 8 and 9, which reads as under: "8. Normally the plea of adverse possession would only enable the person taking the same to resist any attempt by any other person to evict him. It is almost in the form of the defence. It was for this reason that the plea of adverse possession is treated as shield and not a sword. The doubt is as to whether an individual who continued in possession of an immovable property and whose possession was adverse to the lawful owner can seek a declaration of his title. However, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Balakishan vs. Satyaprakash (2001) 2 SCC 498 . In that case the trial Court decreed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. The appeal filed against the same was dismissed. However, in the second appeal, the High Court reversed the Judgments of the Courts below by observing as under. "In spite of the fact that the plaintiff continued in possession, in spite of the order against him in proceedings under Sec. 250 MP LR Code, his possession cannot be said to be sufficient in eye of Law to confer a title upon him by adverse possession, as claimed". 9.The Judgment of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court with the following observation: "Form the above discussion it follows that the Judgment and decree of the High Court under challenge cannot be sustained. They are accordingly set aside the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances of the case without costs". They are accordingly set aside the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances of the case without costs". 2) C.S.Kumaraswami Gounder vs. Aravagiri Gounder and another. AIR 1974 Madras 239, wherein it is held that partition can be effected orally and person who got property in oral partition can also plead adverse possession. 3) Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others. 2019 (5) ALT (SC) 38 (F.B), wherein it is held that the plaintiff can claim title to the property basing on adverse possession, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court over-ruled the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another. (2014) 1 SCC 669 , relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents. He prays to allow the Second Appeal. 12. The learned Counsel, representing the respondents would submit that the Appellate Court after properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rightly set-aside the Judgment of the trial Court. He would further submit that Ex.A1/ROR is not a certified copy, which rightly held by the Appellate Court and co-owner cannot plead adverse possession, which also not proved by the plaintiffs. He prays to dismiss the Second Appeal. 13. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law raised at Ground Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7 of grounds of appeal, which are: "1.The lower Appellate Court grossly erred in not complying with the mandatory requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC in not even framing the points for determination? 2.The Court below grossly erred in holding that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving that the suit property is joint family property and rejecting Exs.A1, A2 and A12 in flimsy and irrelevant grounds? 3.Whether the decision of the lower Appellate Court is sustainable in view of not following the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC? 4.Whether the entries in revenue records duly proved by the concerned authorities can be evidence of title particularly in the absence of any evidence to the contra"? 14. As per Sec. 100 of CPC, this Court can interfere with the Judgment of the Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law. 4.Whether the entries in revenue records duly proved by the concerned authorities can be evidence of title particularly in the absence of any evidence to the contra"? 14. As per Sec. 100 of CPC, this Court can interfere with the Judgment of the Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law. A finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court is binding on this Court, unless there is any error of law in such finding. Even a wrong finding of fact is not sufficient to constitute a question of law. While considering the Second Appeal in terms of Sec. 100 of CPC, this Court can consider a substantial question of law and no more question of law or based on facts. 15. In Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others - Appellants vs. Saraswati and Others - Respondent(s) in Civil Appeal No.NIL of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8736 of 2016) Judgment dtd. 22/9/2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the scope of Sec. 100 of CPC and laid the principles relating to Sec. 100 of CPC at Para No.33 of the Judgment, which reads as under: "33. The principles relating to Sec. 100 of the CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is a misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in constructing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (Emphasis supplied) (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which effects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the Court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence, " it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that Mr.Avula Naganna Gowdu and Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu are brothers, who are the sons of Mr.Yellappa Gowdu. It is also not in dispute that Mr.Avula Naganna Gowdu is the eldest brother, whereas Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu is younger brother. The plaintiffs are claiming title and possession over the plaint schedule property through Mr.Avula Naganna Gowdu, whereas the defendants are claiming title and possession over the plaint schedule property through Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu. It is also not in dispute that the plaint schedule property and other extent in total Ac.1.18 cents in S.No.21/3 purchased by Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu, younger brother of Mr.Avula Naganna Gowdu under original of Ex.A13/registered sale deed, which Photostat copy of the same filed by the defendants marked as Ex.B1. The relationship set out in the plaint and genealogical tree/family tree set out in the written statement of the 2nd defendant is not in dispute. The trial Court decreed the suit basing on entries made in Ex.A1/true copy of ROR, which genuineness said to be confirmed by PW.2/Village Administrative Officer by producing the original of Ex.A12, which admittedly hand written document prepared by Village 'Karanam'. The trial Court decreed the suit basing on entries made in Ex.A1/true copy of ROR, which genuineness said to be confirmed by PW.2/Village Administrative Officer by producing the original of Ex.A12, which admittedly hand written document prepared by Village 'Karanam'. The trial Court also held that basing on revenue records, the plaintiffs able to demonstrate and prove the ouster of branch of Mr.Dasanna Gowdu in respect of plaint schedule property and proved their exclusive possession. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned trial Judge, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs is based on entries in revenue records. 17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Appellate Judge, there is no pleading in the plaint that the plaint schedule property was joint family property of Mr.Dasanna Gowdu and Mr.Naganna Gowdu, and there is no pleading that Mr.Dasanna Gowdu purchased agricultural land under original of Ex.A13 out of joint family nucleus, as they both were having agricultural lands. So, the claim of the defendants through Mr.Avula Dasanna Gowdu is based on Ex.A13/title deed, which also admitted by the plaintiffs during the evidence of plaintiffs, as they themselves filed copy of registered sale deed, marked as Ex.A13, but they failed to plead in their plaint that originally the plaint schedule property purchased by Mr.Dasanna Gowdu out of joint family nucleus and it is joint family property as rightly observed by the learned Appellate Judge. 18. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants, as plaintiffs can also claim the title by way of adverse possession can be used as shield as well as sword. It has to be considered whether the plaintiffs are able to prove their plea of adverse possession. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Kerala and another. Appellants vs. Joseph and others. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.3142 of 2010, Judgment dtd. 9/8/2023 elaborately discussed the 'principles' to be applied while considering the plea of adverse possession at Para Nos.20, 21, 21 (1) to 21 (6), which reads as under: "20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Kerala and another. Appellants vs. Joseph and others. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.3142 of 2010, Judgment dtd. 9/8/2023 elaborately discussed the 'principles' to be applied while considering the plea of adverse possession at Para Nos.20, 21, 21 (1) to 21 (6), which reads as under: "20. The principle of adverse possession has been defined by the Privy Council in Perry v. Clissold in the following terms: "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of the owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title." 21. Before proceeding to do so, it is essential to take note of the law governing such a claim. After a perusal and consideration of various judgments rendered by this Court, the following principles can be observed: 21.1 Possession must be open, clear, continuous and hostile to the claim or possession of the other party; all three classic requirements must coexist- nec vi, i.e., adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e., adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and knowledge; (a) In Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna, the Privy Council held that- "The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor." (b) Further, the Council Maharaja Sri Chandra Nandi v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore observed- "It is sufficient that the possession should be overt and without any attempt at concealment, so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening." (c) A Bench of three judges of this Court in Parsinni v. Sukhi held that "Party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession must be 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario' i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate, in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner." (d) In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. The possession must be adequate, in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner." (d) In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (twoJudge Bench) it was held:- "It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period." This case was relied on in the case of M.Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority (three-Judge Bench), Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (three-Judge Bench). (e) This Court in a recent case of M Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. (five-Judge Bench) reiterated this principle as under - "748. 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 nec precario'. 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." 21.2 The person claiming adverse possession must show clear and cogent evidence substantiate such claim; This Court in Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar (twoJudge Bench) held that - "5. 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..." Reference may also be made to M. Siddiq (supra). 21.3 Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant the right of adverse possession on its own; (a) In Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr.Nirmal Chander and Anr. (two-Judge Bench), this court observed- "1... 21.3 Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant the right of adverse possession on its own; (a) In Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr.Nirmal Chander and Anr. (two-Judge Bench), this court observed- "1... It is not merely unauthorised possession on termination of his licence that enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act on the part of the licensee to show that he is claiming adverse title. It is possible that the licensor may not file an action for the purpose of recovering possession of the premises from the licensee after terminating his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licensee to claim title by adverse possession. There must be some overt act on the part of the licensee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough." Reference may also be made to Arvind Kumar (supra); Mallikarjunaiah v. Nanjaiah (two-Judge Bench); Uttam Chand (supra). 21.4 Such clear and continuous possession must be accompanied by animus possidendi - the intention to possess or in other words, the intention to dispossess the rightful owner; in Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) it was observed- "...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 accounted in cases of this nature..." (a) The case of Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam (two-Judge Bench) also shed light on this principle as under - "24. Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well-settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession..." (b) In Des Raj and Others v. Bhagat Ram (two-Judge Bench) this Court observed - "21. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession..." (b) In Des Raj and Others v. Bhagat Ram (two-Judge Bench) this Court observed - "21. In a case of this nature, where long and continuous possession of the plaintiff-respondent stands admitted, the only question which arose for consideration by the courts below was as to whether the plaintiff had been in possession of the properties in hostile declaration of his title vis-a-vis his co-owners and they were in know thereof." (c) This court in L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash (two- Judge Bench) had observed that permissive possession or possession in the absence of Animus possidendi would not constitute the claim of adverse possession. (d) It was also held in the case of Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (two-Judge Bench) - "15. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and that possession was open and undisturbed..." (Emphasis supplied) Referring to the above judgement Subha Rao (supra) this Court has reiterated the cardinality of the presence of Animus possidendi in a case concerning adverse possession in Brijesh Kumar and Anr. v. Shardabai (dead) by LRs.(two- Judge Bench). 21.5 Such a plea is available not only as a defence when title is questioned, but is also available as a claim to a person who has perfected his title; The prior position of law as set out in Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (two-Judge Bench) was that the plea of adverse possession can be used only as a shield by the defendant and not as a sword by the plaintiff. However, the position was changed later by the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur (supra) had held that - "...Title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession..." The position in Ravinder Kaur (supra) was followed in Narasamma and Ors. v. A. Krishnappa (Dead) Through LRs. (three-Judge Bench). 21.6 Mere passing of an ejectment order does not cause brake in possession neither causes his dispossession; In Balkrishna v. Satyaprakash (two-Judge Bench) this Court held: "...Mere passing of an order of ejectment against a person claiming to be in adverse possession neither causes his dispossession nor discontinuation of his possession which alone breaks the continuity of possession." 19. The plaintiffs' claiming of adverse possession is based on oral partition, and also based on long standing possession, which ripen into adverse possession basing on revenue records. As rightly held by the learned Appellate Judge that Ex.A1 is true copy of Record of Rights (ROR), which entries are based on hand-written entries made by the previous 'Karanam' of the village. A perusal of Ex.A1, which shows that it is issued by the Village Administrative Officer having endorsement that "Avula Venkatappa- Ac.0.57 cents, Avula Venkataswamy - Ac.0.30 1/2 cents, Avula Gangulappa - Ac.0.30 1/2 cents, total Ac.1.18 cents, and against the extent of Ac.0.57 cents, it is also written that by way of sale". It is not mentioned in ROR (Ex.A1 copy) that by way of oral partition as pleaded by the plaintiffs. Even otherwise, Ex.A1/true copy of ROR not issued as per Sec. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it has no endorsement that it is true copy of the original, and not attested by the Tahsildar or Mandal Revenue Officer, which rightly pointed out by the learned Appellate Judge. Now, it would be beneficial to quote Sec. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: "76. Now, it would be beneficial to quote Sec. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: "76. Certified copies of public documents.- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies". 20. To come under the category of Certified Copy of a public document, the following are to be fulfilled: i) The document must be in the custody of a Public Officer available for inspection. ii) The concerned Public Officer has to endorse on the same that it is true copy of the original. iii) The Certification by the Public Officer shall bear the date, the name of the Public Officer and his official designation. iv) It must be sealed by the competent person. So, the Officer who is competent to deliver a Certified copy, is deemed to have custody of the document. 21. In the present case, Ex.A1 not having an endorsement that it is copy of original and there is no certification as required under Sec. 76 of Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, the Village Administrative Officer is not competent to issue certified copies of Revenue records, only the Tahsildar or Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to issue certified copies of revenue records by collecting necessary fees, which is not done in the present case in respect of Ex.A1, which cannot be considered, which appreciating the contention of the appellants to prove their long possession said to be ripped into an adverse possession. But in the present case, the claim of the plaintiffs is that they got property in partition between cosharers, due to that the plea of adverse possession is not available to the co-sharer unless specific ouster has been proved. 22. But in the present case, the claim of the plaintiffs is that they got property in partition between cosharers, due to that the plea of adverse possession is not available to the co-sharer unless specific ouster has been proved. 22. It is settled law that entries in revenue records will not create or extinguish rights in immovable property, at the best those entries can only be used for collecting the land revenue. So, paying the land revenue to the land will not create any right in the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the entire burden of proving the case on the plaintiffs, who cannot depend upon the weaknesses in the defendants' case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others in Civil Appeal No.4702 of 2004, Judgment dtd. 7/1/2014, wherein it is held at Para No.15, which reads as under: "15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, plaintiff must be nonsuited". 23. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to purchase of property and other extent of land under original of Ex.A13/registered sale deed, dtd. 28/4/1915 by Mr.Dasanna Gowdu, who is ancestor of the defendants and when the plaintiffs pleaded that they perfected their right by adverse possession, even assuming that treated them as co-owners, they have to prove specific ouster in addition to the plea of adverse possession, which they failed to prove as rightly held by the learned Appellate Judge. 28/4/1915 by Mr.Dasanna Gowdu, who is ancestor of the defendants and when the plaintiffs pleaded that they perfected their right by adverse possession, even assuming that treated them as co-owners, they have to prove specific ouster in addition to the plea of adverse possession, which they failed to prove as rightly held by the learned Appellate Judge. Though, the learned Appellate Judge has not framed specific points to be considered as required under Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC, at para No.14 he has elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and came to right conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden on them that the suit property is joint family property, thereby failed to prove their plea of adverse possession. 24. Basing on material and evidence, the first Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, and set-aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, finding no such question that requires consideration in the Second Appeal, much less substantial question of law and their appreciation of evidence as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, this Second Appeal has to be dismissed. 25. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own cost. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The Interim Orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.