JUDGMENT : Defendants in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff in the suit and respondent No.2 was defendant No.3 in the suit. 2. On 21.03.2014 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest in respect of Ac.0.69 cents of land in S.No.270/2? and 2. Whether findings of both Courts below are perverse on this aspect? 3. The facts leading to the present second appeal need be noticed now : Ac.0.69 cents of land in Survey No.270/2 in Chinthalapatteda Village also called as Venkatarajuvaripeta Village, Gundrajukuppam Revenue Village of Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District is the property in dispute. Definite boundaries on all the four sides are recorded for this piece of land described in the plaint schedule. On two sides of this land a tank in Survey No.270/1 is shown. On two sides of the plaint schedule land of others are shown. The suit was filed as O.S.No.17 of 2000 by the sole plaintiff seeking for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. Claim of the plaintiff was that his father purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 01.07.1942. In addition to that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam also granted a patta on 09.07.1943. Since those times the property has been in possession and enjoyment of ancestors of the plaintiff and thereafter it has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Defendant No.3 has no rights over the property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2/Government has also no rights over the property. However, under the influence of defendant No.3 the Government authorities were trying to grant a patta in favour of defendant No.3 over a part of the plaint schedule property. It is further stated that Government authorities were claiming the plaint schedule property as a poramboke land but such a claim is against the entries in the revenue records. To the south and east of the plaint schedule, there is a tank and that is in distinct survey number and that has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. It is further stated that Government authorities were claiming the plaint schedule property as a poramboke land but such a claim is against the entries in the revenue records. To the south and east of the plaint schedule, there is a tank and that is in distinct survey number and that has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. At para No.VIII of the plaint, it is stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 being public officials a petition under Section 80(2) C.P.C. was filed dispensing with notice contemplated under Section 80(1) C.P.C. Defendant No.3 did not choose to appear and contest and was set ex parte before the trial Court. On behalf of the Government, 2nd defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit that was filed without issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The entire pleaded case of the plaintiff is incorrect and false. At para No.12 of the written statement, it is stated that land in Survey No.270/2 was classified as Thangellagunta Tank. At para No.11 of the written statement, it is stated that land in Survey No.270/1 was classified as Thangellagunta Tank. Land in Survey No.270/2 is classified as patta land. Extent of the land in Survey No.270/2 is only Ac.0.44 cents and the patta stands in the name of Sri Annamalai Mudali, who is the father of the plaintiff. After the death of his father, plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book for the land in Survey No.270/2. The claim of the plaintiff for an additional extent of Ac.0.25 cents in the said Survey No.270/2 is illegal and contrary to law. Therefore, declaration and permanent injunction over such an extent of land cannot be granted. Written statement further refers to a fact that the land in Survey No.270/1, which was originally classified as tank, was subsequently converted into house sites and it went on referring to sub-divisions made in that portion of the land and how certain portions of those sub-divided lands were handed over to Zilla Parishad. It also refers to certain writ petitions concerning Survey No.270/1. It sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the plaintiff has got right and title, in respect of the suit property? 2. It also refers to certain writ petitions concerning Survey No.270/1. It sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the plaintiff has got right and title, in respect of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 5. In proof of his case, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the Government/defendant Nos.1 and 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer of Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District testified as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.4. 6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence and on considering the arguments advanced by both sides, learned trial Court observed that the real matter in dispute was only about total extent of land in Survey No.270/2. According to plaintiff, it was Ac.0.69 cents, but according to defendants it was only Ac.0.44 cents. On considering Ex.A.1-registered sale deed dated 01.07.1942, it observed that land transacted was 10 guntas, which was almost equal to Ac.0.69 cents claimed by the plaintiff and that was in possession of predecessors in interest of the plaintiff and thereafter it is that extent of the land that has been in possession of the plaintiff. It observed that while the plaintiff has title over Ac.0.69 cents, he has been cultivating only Ac.0.44 cents. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1 and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule matched and there has been no change in the boundaries since then till the time of the suit. That the plaintiff proved his lawful possession and enjoyment by virtue of Ex.A-Series documents. Referring to Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.3 it observed that in one column they refer Survey No.270/2 concerning Ac.0.44 cents as a patta land, but at another column these very documents indicate Ac.0.69 cents in the said survey number showing possession of the plaintiff. With such observations it found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 7. Referring to Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.3 it observed that in one column they refer Survey No.270/2 concerning Ac.0.44 cents as a patta land, but at another column these very documents indicate Ac.0.69 cents in the said survey number showing possession of the plaintiff. With such observations it found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by such judgment, defendant Nos.1 and 2 carried the matter in first appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur in A.S.No.2 of 2008. Before the first appellate Court the main contention was raised stating that while the evidence indicated Ac.0.44 cents of land of plaintiff the trial Court erroneously decreed it for Ac.0.69 cents of land, which is against the entries in the revenue records. The learned first appellate Court on considering the entire evidence and the findings of the trial Court and on considering the arguments advanced before it on both sides, independently scrutinized the entire evidence and stated that according to Ex.A.1-registered sale deed the land was almost Ac.0.69 cents and according to Ex.A.2-Pre Abolition Adangal also the extent of the land was Ac.0.69 cents. DW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the Government authorities did not make any physical visit to the suit property. Ex.B.4 does not relate to the suit schedule property, but it is related to the tank in Survey No.270/1. It further stated that Ex.A.2 dated 10.04.1996 was issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagari himself and in column No.11 the extent is mentioned as Ac.0.69 cents for Survey No.270/2. It verified column No.25 of Ex.A.2 where it was mentioned as Ac.0.44 cents as the extent of land in that survey number. Coming to Ex.B.1 it stated that the date of issuance of Ex.B.1 was not mentioned though Ex.B.1 is settlement fair adangal. On assessment of the above evidence, it came to a conclusion that the findings of the trial Court were right and it agreed with those findings and dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 8. It is against those judgments, the present second appeal came to be filed. 9. On assessment of the above evidence, it came to a conclusion that the findings of the trial Court were right and it agreed with those findings and dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 8. It is against those judgments, the present second appeal came to be filed. 9. During the course of arguments, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the appellants argued that as per law a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is mandatory and plaintiff by his own showing disclosed that no such notice was issued prior to the filing of the suit and that is fatal. On considering this submission it is to be stated that as noticed earlier, in the plaint it is mentioned that notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. was not given prior to the filing of the suit, but an application under Section 80(2) C.P.C. was filed. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court about any incorrectness in the said averment. Thus, an application under Section 80(2) C.P.C. must have been filed by the original plaintiff before the trial Court. Perhaps it is for that reason no issue was settled for the purpose of trial though there was a specific stand taken in the written statement that notice prior to the suit under Section 80 C.P.C. was not issued. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court as well as the grounds of appeal and the arguments advanced before the first appellate Court and the judgment of the first appellate Court do not indicate any issue settled and any argument advanced concerning maintainability of the suit on the ground that Section 80(1) notice was not issued. Thus, what transpires is that despite a contention being taken up in the written statement on the question of maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. no issue was framed and never defendants moved any application for amendment of issues and no arguments were submitted before the trial Court and thereby no finding was invited from the trial Court on that question. Similar situation prevailed till the matter was disposed of by the first appellate Court. When that being the fact on record, now the point is whether an argument based on omission to give notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. can be countenanced in this second appeal. Similar situation prevailed till the matter was disposed of by the first appellate Court. When that being the fact on record, now the point is whether an argument based on omission to give notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. can be countenanced in this second appeal. In Paleti Sivarama krishnaiah v. Executive Engineer, N.C. Canals Sathenapalli, AIR 1978 AP 389 /1978 SCC Online AP 2015, this Court at para No.20 held that as long as no issue was settled before the trial Court and no effort was made for having an issue settled or framed before the trial Court and having contested the suit which resulted in passing of a judgment by the trial Court, taking an objection about notice even before the first appellate Court could not be approved. On that principle, which is squarely applicable to the facts on record, the contention of the appellants has to be negatived. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that there was clear misappreciation of evidence by both the Courts below leading to perverse findings. 11. As against it, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that it was based on evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Courts below concurrently reached to findings of facts and this Court sitting in second appeal should decide the dispute based on those findings on facts and should not reappreciate the evidence. 12. The claim of title and possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is about a piece of land. Its descriptive particulars include the extent, boundaries on all four sides, survey number. Indicating ownership and possession over such a piece of land since the time of his ancestors till the date of presentation of the suit certain documents were filed. Oldest among them is Ex.A.1, which is a registered sale deed dated 01.07.1942 and thereafter Ex.A.2, which is a certified copy of survey and settlement register for the fasali 1363 equivalent to the year 1955 and Ex.A.3, which is an old revenue record of the fasali 1366 equivalent to 1958. All those documents indicate ownership and possession over Ac.0.69 cents of land. The evidence of plaintiff as PW.1 and Mandal Revenue Officer as DW.1 is in unison that for the piece of land of plaintiff/respondent No.1 on south and east it is Thangellagunta Tank. On north and west there is land of others. All those documents indicate ownership and possession over Ac.0.69 cents of land. The evidence of plaintiff as PW.1 and Mandal Revenue Officer as DW.1 is in unison that for the piece of land of plaintiff/respondent No.1 on south and east it is Thangellagunta Tank. On north and west there is land of others. From the averments in the written statement, it is clear that Thangellagunta Tank is now no more a tank and it was converted into habitable land and was dealt with accordingly by the Government. Throughout the period of this litigation both parties did not choose to have an advocate commissioner taken out to measure the extent of the disputed property. The fact that for about more than seven decades the predecessors in interest and thereafter the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been in possession and exercising rights of ownership over the claimed property is not in dispute. It is not the case of appellants in their written statement that the plaintiff ever encroached into property of others. It is in the context of these aspects, the contentions raised in the appeal are to be considered. The stand of the appellants before the trial Court indicate that at one breath it was stated that there was no land for the plaintiff and it was a poramboke land and at another breath, they stated that plaintiff had land, but it was only Ac.0.44 cents since that Survey No.270/2 has only an extent of Ac.0.44 cents. Such a contention based merely on an extent in survey number it is not possible to hold that the property owned and possessed by plaintiff in an extent of Ac.0.69 cents is incorrect. Law has been that survey number is a matter of mere description for the purpose of identity and in considering the extent of land it has always been recognized that the boundaries to the land prevail over rest of the descriptions since it is physical existence of these boundaries, which were agreed upon between parties as the parcel of land that was dealt with. At para No.11 of the written statement, these appellants pleaded that plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook for Ac.0.44 cents. However, Government did not choose to exhibit it. At para No.11 of the written statement, these appellants pleaded that plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook for Ac.0.44 cents. However, Government did not choose to exhibit it. DW.1 in his examination in chief stated that survey and settlement officer conducted an enquiry and on 22.06.1956 it was declared that Survey No.270/2 is patta land in an extent of Ac.0.44 cents belonging to Sri Adili Annamalai Modali (father of plaintiff). However, such proceedings indicting about such enquiry and issuance of any proceedings dated 22.06.1956 were not brought on record by the Government/appellants. Why these documents were not produced has never been explained. When the registered sale deeds and the revenue records furnished by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 indicated his title and possession over Ac.0.69 cents of land, unless there is evidence indicating that the recitals in Ex.A.1-registered sale deed and the entries in revenue records are incorrect and false, it is not possible to deny the relief that was prayed for by the plaintiff. The suit is not one to decide whether in Survey No.270/2 the existing extent was only Ac.0.44 cents or Ac.0.69 cents. The suit is about Ac.0.69 cents of land over which plaintiff claimed title and possession. If on ground Ac.0.69 cents spreads beyond Survey No.270/2, it was for the defendants to show to what extent and to which survey numbers such extra extent fell. Instead of helping a citizen in having peaceful enjoyment of his own property, the Government has been merely contending and raising a question about extent of land that was there in a particular survey number. Even if it is to be recorded that in Survey No.270/2 there is only Ac.0.44 cents that by itself do not lead to denial of title declaration for the plaintiff by virtue of oral and documentary evidence he adduced. In these circumstances, the final conclusions reached by both the Courts below shall be upheld as valid and the contention that the appreciation of evidence is perverse is one without merit. 13. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar, 1999 (3) SCC 722 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that concurrent findings of fact, however erroneous, cannot be normally disturbed by the High Court while considering the appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Second appeal cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds. 13. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar, 1999 (3) SCC 722 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that concurrent findings of fact, however erroneous, cannot be normally disturbed by the High Court while considering the appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Second appeal cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds. In the light of the above law and the material on record, points are answered against the appellants. 14. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.