JUDGMENT : 1. Both the Second Appeals arose out of one judgement of the Courts below and therefore both sides argued them together and they are to be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Smt.B.Kanthamma filed O.S.No.291 of 2000 as against 7 defendants. An immovable property which is a plot of land was in controversy and that was shown in the schedule appended to the plaint. The relief claimed by the plaintiff was for declaration of title over the property and she also sought for consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot of land. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati tried the suit and by a judgment dated 10.12.2002, it decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 3. In the above referred suit, first defendant was Sri P.Madhava Naidu. He alone preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.97 of 2002 before learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The plaintiff in the suit Smt.B.Kanthamma was shown as respondent No.1 in the first appeal. Defendant No.2 to 7 in the suit did not prefer an appeal and therefore they were shown as respondent Nos.2 to 7 in the first appeal. After due hearing on both sides, the learned first appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same and as a consequence it confirmed the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court. 4. The first defendant in the suit Sri. Madhava Naidu who lost his first appeal filed the S.A.No.655 of 2015 in which the plaintiff in the suit Smt.B.Kanthamma is shown as respondent No.1 and the remaining defendants are shown as remaining respondents. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the sole appellant in S.A.No.655 of 2015 died and her legal representatives came on record as appellant Nos.2 to 6. 5. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the suit though did not prefer any first appeal came up with Second Appeal No.650 of 2015 in which the plaintiff Smt.B.Kanthamma is shown as respondent No.1 and defendant No.1 in the suit Sri.P.Madhava Naidu is shown as respondent No.2. During the pendency of that Second Appeal appellant No.6 died and therefore his legal representatives came on record as appellant Nos.9 and 10. 6. During the pendency of that Second Appeal appellant No.6 died and therefore his legal representatives came on record as appellant Nos.9 and 10. 6. Both these Second Appeals were presented under Section 100 CPC and they arose out of same judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 7. A learned judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsel and after considering the material on record admitted S.A.No.655 of 2015 on 09.10.2015 on a substantial question of law in the following terms: “Whether a patta for house site under Ex.A3 can be granted in favour of first respondent/plaintiff under A.P. Abolition of Inams Act?” 8. Also a learned judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsel and after considering the material on record, admitted S.A.No.650 of 2015 on 13.11.2017 on a substantial question of law in the following terms: “Whether a patta for house site under Ex.A3 can be granted in favour of first respondent/plaintiff under A.P. Abolition of Inams Act?” 9. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their arguments on the questions that were formulated and referred earlier. 10. A brief narration of the legal journey that preceded these two appeals is required to be noticed in order to appreciate the rival contentions. Tiruchanur village in chittor district is a minor inam village. The property in dispute is in Survey No.242. The plaint schedule narrates the measurements of the property in dispute, definite boundaries on all four sides for that piece of land. The said property is described as a house site. It is stated that this plaint schedule property mentioned is house site plot No.435. It is about this property, the dispute arose among parties. Before proceeding further, it is to be noticed that there is a woman by name Smt. Rajamma who is the mother of defendant No.1 Sri P.Madhava Naidu. He claimed to have purchased several plots of land in the name of his mother Smt. Rajamma and he claimed that his mother is the benami for him. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are undisputedly other legal heirs of Smt. Rajamma. He claimed to have purchased several plots of land in the name of his mother Smt. Rajamma and he claimed that his mother is the benami for him. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are undisputedly other legal heirs of Smt. Rajamma. They claimed that the plots of lands were purchased by Smt. Rajamma by her own exertion and they belong to her and therefore on her death not only the defendant No.1 but defendant Nos.2 to 7 also hold rights over those properties and the claim of defendant No.1 that properties were not owned by Smt.Rajamma and she was only a byname to defendant No.1 are incorrect. This makes it clear that defendant No.1 is on one side and defendant No.2 to 7 are on the other side but their rival claims over succession has no particular bearing in the suit since these two groups propagate the theory that Smt. Rajamma was the title holder for certain plots of land which have relevance to the suit mentioned dispute. 11. There are other facts which were not disputed. Smt. R. Munirathnamma is the very original owner of the lands. Plaintiff in the suit produce Ex.A6 registered sale deed dated 25.02.1981 stating that from the predecessors in interest, she purchased Plot No.435 which is in dispute. She purchased it under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 01.09.1965 under which the original owner sold out this plot of land and the purchaser held it for sometime and sold it out under Ex.A2 registered sale deed dated 13.12.1976 and thereafter that purchaser sold out this property to this plaintiff under Ex.A6 registered sale deed dated 25.02.1981. Thus, the flow of title was shown through these documents. 12. As against this under Ex.B1 registered sale deed dated 06.05.1965 plot Nos.327 to 330 and 428 to 434 were purchased in the name of Smt. Rajamma and the purchase was made from the very original owner Smt.Muniratnamma. 13. Thus, both parties to the dispute draw their rights from the very original owner Smt. Munirathnamma. Smt. Rajamma became the owner of her own plots under Ex.B1 since 06.05.1965. Plaintiff through her predecessors in interest become owner from a time little later under Ex.A1 dated 01.09.1965. 14. 13. Thus, both parties to the dispute draw their rights from the very original owner Smt. Munirathnamma. Smt. Rajamma became the owner of her own plots under Ex.B1 since 06.05.1965. Plaintiff through her predecessors in interest become owner from a time little later under Ex.A1 dated 01.09.1965. 14. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that she and earlier to it her predecessors in interest have been holding title and possession over this plot of land and on 16.04.2000 when she was constructing a compound wall for her plot of land, defendants interfered with it. It was in those circumstances she had to sue for declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction. The contention raised by the defendants was that plaint schedule plot of land is non-existent. They state that Smt. R. Munirathnamma, the original owner, sold out more extent of land than what she had and that resulted in lot of problems. It was in that regard Smt.Rajamma and defendant No.1filed O.S.No.77 of 1977 before learned Principal Sub-Judge, Tirupati. The litigation was fought for sometime and finally, at the intervention of good counsel a compromise was arrived at and a compromise decree was passed on 22.01.1991. The effect of all these is that Ex.B4 new layout was made under which the plot numbers of Rajamma and others were changed and as per Ex.B4 new layout Rajamma owned Plot Nos.342 to 344, 346 to 352, 407 to 411. The disputed Plot No.435 as well as a part of Plot Nos.432 to 434 of Rajamma and a part of other plots belonged to others were cut off and they ceased to exist and there is now a compound wall of market yard is there and therefore the plaint schedule plot is not in existence and the plaintiff is unnecessarily litigating to grab the property of defendants. 15. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial: Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential injunction? 3. To what relief? 16. Both sides were invited to lead their evidence. Plaintiff Smt.B.Kanthamma swore and gave evidence as PW.1 and got examined two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 Sri.P.Madhava Naidu gave evidence as DW1 and got examined two other witnesses DWs.2 and 3(defendant No.2 testified as DW3). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential injunction? 3. To what relief? 16. Both sides were invited to lead their evidence. Plaintiff Smt.B.Kanthamma swore and gave evidence as PW.1 and got examined two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 Sri.P.Madhava Naidu gave evidence as DW1 and got examined two other witnesses DWs.2 and 3(defendant No.2 testified as DW3). Plaintiff presented Exs.A1 to A7, defendants presented Exs.B1 to B17. 17. On considering the oral and documentary evidence and on considering the submissions advanced before it by the counsels on both sides, the learned trial Court after detailed consideration of the evidence had recorded its observations stating that the purchase of plaint schedule plot by plaintiff stood proved by virtue of Exs.A1 to A6. It then considered one crucial fact which is in Ex.A3. This plaintiff subsequent to her purchase took up legal proceedings before Inam deputy tahsildar, chittor. The authorities, after due enquiry, granted her ryotwari patta-evidenced by Ex.A3 dated 21.11.1995. According to the learned trial Court since the disputed plot of land was part of inam village and since plaintiff obtained ryotwari patta in accordance with law, the same cannot be questioned and that cements the claim of the plaintiff and recorded that the plaintiff was the title holder of the disputed property. It went on to consider the various contentions raised by the defendants. It observed that all that layout and then revised layout that are proposed by the defendants were not proved since layouts filed by them under Ex.B2 dated17.03.1963 and the revised layout under Ex.B4 dated 26.02.1991 do not indicate that they were granted by competent authorities. It concluded that they were private drawings of the parties and they have no authenticity. It then recorded that O.S.No.77 of 1977 filed by Smt. Rajamma and others as against original owner of the properties did not result in any adjudication and it was only a compromise decree. By the time compromise decree was passed under Ex.B5 dated 26.02.1991, plaintiff had already obtained Ex.A3 Ryothwari patta. Moreover, this plaintiff or her predecessors in interest under Ex.A1 or A2 or A6 were never made parties to O.S.No.77 of 1977. Since they were not parties whatever was there in that judgment would not bind plaintiff. It further recorded a finding that the disputed plot No.435 was never claimed to have been owned by defendants. Moreover, this plaintiff or her predecessors in interest under Ex.A1 or A2 or A6 were never made parties to O.S.No.77 of 1977. Since they were not parties whatever was there in that judgment would not bind plaintiff. It further recorded a finding that the disputed plot No.435 was never claimed to have been owned by defendants. The claim of the defendants is that by virtue of revised lay out, plot claimed by the plaintiff ceased to exist as it was merged in the property of market yard. It is on these observations and findings, learned trial Court held that defendants failed to establish their rights over plaint schedule property. It was in that context of facts, it not only granted the declaration of title but also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. 18. When the defendant No.1 carried the matter to the first appellate Court, the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati meticulously recorded the pleadings and elaborately discussed the entire evidence. He observed that the question of identity of plot and its existence or otherwise was the essence of the dispute. It considered the prayers of parties and deputed an advocate commissioner and sent surveyors and finally got the reports. It elaborately went on to discuss all those aspects referred in the reports of the surveyor and commissioner and concluded that the suit disputed plot of land is in existence. It then considered all the issues and independently concluded that findings recorded by the trial Court on each aspect was accurate and therefore it confirmed those findings and as a result dismissed the appeal. 19. During the hearing of these two second appeals, learned counsel for appellants submitted that plot number does not find place in the plaint schedule as well as Ex.A6 registered sale deed of the plaintiff. Therefore, Courts below ought not to have decreed the suit. As could be seen form the record, this contention was raised before both the Courts below and the contention was rightly negatived by the Courts below. Both the Courts recorded a finding that Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds contain plot No.435 and plot number is missing in Ex.A6. They recorded that the measurements and boundaries on all four sides are similar in all the three registered sale deeds. They stated that identity of plot is not in dispute among Exs.A1,A2 and A6. Both the Courts recorded a finding that Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds contain plot No.435 and plot number is missing in Ex.A6. They recorded that the measurements and boundaries on all four sides are similar in all the three registered sale deeds. They stated that identity of plot is not in dispute among Exs.A1,A2 and A6. It was in that view point, they negatiaved the claim. Reagitation of the same factual dispute on part of the appellants does not merit any further consideration. 20. On the substantial questions of law that are raised, learned counsel for appellants submits that Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Inam (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1956 provides mechanism for grant of ryotwari patta and that was violated and therefore Ex.A3 ryothwari patta of plaintiff ought not to have been relied upon by the Courts below. Learned counsel submits that it was no more an agricultural land and it was a house plot and granting a ryotwari patta by inams Tahsildar is incorrect and illegal. 21. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing for plaintiff/respondent No.1 submitted that the appellants could not be permitted to raise these questions as they did not pursue remedies provided by Act 1956 and did not initiate any legal proceedings to set aside the ryotwari patta under Ex.A3 and their agitation of the issue cannot be adjudicated since civil Courts are debarred from exercising any jurisdiction when the validity of patta granted by competent authority was raised. 22. After keen consideration of the rival submissions and after considering the material on record, the following aspects are to be stated now: That granting ryotwari patta for a house plot is not provided by the Act is one submission raised by the appellants. Both the Courts below pointedly recorded that same question was raised before them and the counsels who raised them failed to bring to their notice any principle in the statute or any principle from the precedent. It shall be stated here that before this Court also neither statute nor precedent is cited in this regard. Be that as it may. The entire theory of defendants/appellants about the layout in Ex.B2 and the revised layout in Ex.B4 fell to ground since they failed to show any approved layout issued by any competent authority. It shall be stated here that before this Court also neither statute nor precedent is cited in this regard. Be that as it may. The entire theory of defendants/appellants about the layout in Ex.B2 and the revised layout in Ex.B4 fell to ground since they failed to show any approved layout issued by any competent authority. Thus, as per the findings of the trial Court, the inference that could be drawn is that even if people have been using certain parcels of land as house sites, in the eyes of law as there was no approved layout, they did not cease to be ryotwari lands. Therefore, the main plank of contention ceased to exist for the appellants. Section 7(2) of the Act, 1956 indicates that anyone aggrieved by grant of ryotwari patta by the tahsildar could prefer an appeal before the revenue Court and the revenue court in such appeal shall take appropriate decision. Sub-section (3) of section 7 provides that if no appeal is preferred, the decision of the tahsildar is final. If appeal is preferred, the decision of the revenue Court is final. Section 14(A) of the Act provides for revision by Board of Revenue as against orders of the tahsildar or the revenue Court or the Collector. It is not in dispute that after plaintiff obtained Ex.A3 patta on 21.11.1995 from inams deputy tahsildar, chittor, till now none took up any of the proceedings to pursue any of the remedies provided by and under the Act, 1956. Thus, as the things stand now Ex.A3 holds legal ground. It is at this juncture one has to notice section 14 of the Act, 1956 which is extracted here. Section 14 Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts: “No suit or other proceeding shall be instituted in any civil Court to set aside or modify any decision of the tahsildar, the revenue Court, or the collector under this Act, except where such decision is obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion of parties.” 23. The record before this Court does not indicate any pleadings and any evidence about any fraud, collusion or misrepresentation on part of plaintiff and the original owner R.Munirathnamma in obtaining Ex.A3 ryotwari patta by plaintiff. No issue was settled either before trial Court or learned first appellate Court. The record before this Court does not indicate any pleadings and any evidence about any fraud, collusion or misrepresentation on part of plaintiff and the original owner R.Munirathnamma in obtaining Ex.A3 ryotwari patta by plaintiff. No issue was settled either before trial Court or learned first appellate Court. I have gone through the material on record and I could not find any evidence to think and sustain that Ex.A3 was obtained out of any misrepresentation of the act or fraud played on the authorities or other parties or out of any collusion between plaintiff and others. Therefore, by the very terms of Section 14, a civil Court cannot adjudicate incorrectness or otherwise of Ex.A3 ryotwari patta. This Court sitting in Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot set Ex.A3 aside. 24. On facts there is nothing to set aside Ex.A3. It may be stated that both the Courts below very repeatedly stated that the defendants in the suit never preferred any counter claim nor did anything positive to demolish Ex.A3 or to sustain their claims of title. It is in the light of all these circumstances, this Court holds that validity of Ex.A3 ryotwari patta for the parcel of land covered by it cannot be said to be not in accordance with law and hence it is in accordance with law. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals. In the result, these two second appeals are dismissed by a common judgment by confirming the judgment in A.S.No.97 of 2002 dated 26.06.2014 of the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.