JUDGMENT : V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. Defendants in the original suit are the appellants and the present appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugning the concurrent judgments of the Courts below. Respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs before the Courts below. 2. The property in controversy is described in the plaint schedule as mentioned below: “Gudur Town, West Gudur S.N.2010/2D of an extent of Ac.10.00 of dry land and S.No. 2013/5 of an extent of Ac.3.00 of dry land.” Specific boundaries are given. 3. O.S. No. 308 of 1985 was filed before learned District Munsif, Gudur by seven plaintiffs on their own behalf and also as representing the village community of Gudur Town. Their claim has been that the plaint schedule property has been customarily used as a burial ground and since the plaint schedule property in parts were subjected to alienations by Gudur Grama Samudaya Bhumula Vicharana Samstha, they filed the suit with the following prayers: “(a) declaration of the customary right of the plaintiffs to make use of the schedule mentioned land for cremation and burials. (b) granting a permanent injunction against the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs’ customary right and occupying the said land or making any constructions thereon. (c) granting costs of this suit. (d) granting such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this suit.” 4. The defendants in the suit filed their written statements. Necessary issues were settled by the trial Court and evidence on both sides was recorded. By a judgment dated 19.07.1993 the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that there is customary right for the plaintiffs and the village community of Gudur to make use of the plaint schedule property for cremation and burial and the defendants in the suit were directed by way of a perpetual injunction from interfering with the said customary right and were also restrained from making any constructions and also to remove the constructions that were already made. 5. The aggrieved defendants filed A.S. No. 3 of 1994. 5. The aggrieved defendants filed A.S. No. 3 of 1994. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, after considering the contentions on both sides and after fresh analysis of the evidence, came to conclude that the judgment impugned before him was right on facts and law and accordingly, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by that the defendants in the suit preferred this second appeal. 7. On 12.04.2000 a learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the appellate Court failed to frame the proper and necessary points for determination in the appeal and the only point framed by the Court stating that the judgment of the trial Court is on correct lines is not a proper point for consideration which led to miscarriage of justice? (2) Whether the Courts below have considered the case of custom pleaded by the plaintiffs from the correct perspective viz. whether the plaintiffs pleaded and established the necessary ingredients of custom over the appellants land? (3) Whether the appellate Court has given undue consideration to Ex.A.1 draft sketch plan filed by the plaintiffs? The appellate Court has considered Ex.A.1 as if it is an authenticated revenue plan and the contents thereof has evidentiary value? Ex.A.1 plan was marked through PW.1 and he has not proved the contents of the plan. On the other hand he admits in his evidence that the extent of burial ground is Ac.10.00 and he do not remember the exact extent mentioned in the plan? 8. Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, the learned counsel for respondents filed written arguments and submitted oral arguments. 9. It is to be stated that Exs.A.2 and A.3 are registered extracts of the sale deeds standing in favour of the appellants under which certain extents of plaint schedule property were purchased by them from Gudur Grama Samudaya Bhumula Vicharana Samstha. 10. 9. It is to be stated that Exs.A.2 and A.3 are registered extracts of the sale deeds standing in favour of the appellants under which certain extents of plaint schedule property were purchased by them from Gudur Grama Samudaya Bhumula Vicharana Samstha. 10. When the appeal has come up for hearing arguments of learned counsel on both sides, both the learned counsels agreed and submitted that as on today an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land out of Ac.13.00 cents of the land of the plaint schedule has been now used as a cremation ground and it has been under the maintenance of Rotary Club, Gudur and a compound wall and also an arch were also constructed to prevent encroachment into that part of the land and only within that land the village community has been using it as a cremation ground. Learned counsel on both sides also submitted that both sides agreed that the user of the land for cremation be restricted to that Ac.5.00 cents of land encircled by a compound wall with an arch constructed in front of it and in that manner the impugned judgments may be permitted to be modified. This fine gesture of both sides puts a quietus to the litigation. 11. The above submissions obviated the need for any further consideration of the substantial questions of law formulated. With the consent of both sides the appeal is to be disposed of in accordance with the submissions made above. 12. In the result, this Second Appeal is disposed of modifying the impugned judgment dated 23.04.1999 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur in A.S. No. 3 of 1994 in the manner mentioned as below: Out of the plaint schedule property the cremation ground exists and is confined to Ac.5.00 cents of land around which there exists a compound wall and an arch constructed in front of it with letters written as “Sri Allareddy Shyamsundara Reddy Rotary Moksha Dhamam.” The declaration of customary right of burial granted by the Courts below in favour of plaintiffs/respondents stands confined to only this Ac.5.00 cents of land. The perpetual injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents stand confined to the above extent of the land. Consequently, the Courts below shall prepare a decree accordingly. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.