JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of District Court, Vizianagaram and the respondents herein are the defendants in the same suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal are one and the same. 3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 1996 before the trial Court filed the suit with a prayer to declare that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of possession as prayed in the plaint. 4. The brief averments in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs are as follows : (a) It is pleaded that the plaint schedule lands are ryotwari dry lands situated in Kanapaka Village. One Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy of Vizianagaram is the owner and pattadar of the said lands and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The said Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy fell in arrears of income tax. In execution of the certificates forwarded by the Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram, for the recovery of arrears of income tax, the plaint schedule lands were attached by the Tax Recovery Officer, Vijayawada, in the year 1967 and brought to sale. Ultimately, the sale of the said lands was held by public auction on 06-10-1979 by the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam. The plaintiffs were the highest bidders in the said public auction and then sale was knocked down in their favour for Rs.33,670/-. They have deposited the entire bid amount and the sale was confirmed by the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, on 25-3-1986 and a sale certificate dated 25-3-1996 was issued in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule lands and they are entitled to the possession of the said lands. (b) It is further pleaded that after the sale was held by the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, on 06-10-1979, the defendants 1 and 2, the father of defendants 4 to 6 and the 7th defendant filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.6772 of 1979 on the file of this Court claiming to be in possession of the schedule lands as tenants under Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy and the possession of the lands cannot be delivered to the plaintiffs. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15-3-1985. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15-3-1985. The 2nd defendant alone filed a writ appeal vide W.A.No.571 of 1985 against the orders passed in W.P.No.6772 of 1979. The writ appeal was also dismissed on 22-7-1985. (c) It is further pleaded that thereafter, the 2nd defendant alone filed an application before the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, under the Income Tax Act, 1961. None of the defendants have chosen to implead the plaintiffs as respondents in the said application. The defendants claimed therein that they were the tenants under Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy for some time in respect of the schedule lands and thereafter, they became full owners acquiring prescriptive title in respect of them and that as such, they sought for the sale held on 06-10-1979 being set aside. The said application was dismissed on 25-3-1986. (d) It is further pleaded that the defendants have absolutely no right to impeach the sale of the lands held by the Tax Recovery Officer on 06-10-1979 on any ground whatsoever. They have absolutely no manner of right, title or legal possession to the said lands at any time. Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy, original owner and pattadar of the schedule lands, died more than 30 years back. (e) It is further pleaded that Buddharaju Venkatapathi Raju, the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the grand-father of defendants 4 to 6 also died more than 35 years back. Therefore, on the date of attachment of the schedule lands made by the T.R.O., Vijayawada, the said Venkatapathi Raju could not be a lessee of the said lands. After his death, defendants 1 and 2 or defendants 4 to 6 do not state to have obtained lease of the schedule lands from Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy or his legal representatives. As the schedule lands are ryotwari dry lands in a Zeroiti village, no tenant of the said land can acquire any permanent rights of occupancy (Kudivaram right). Therefore, there cannot be any landlord and tenant relationship between Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy or his legal representatives and defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 and the 7th defendant. The attachment of the schedule lands made by the T.R.O., Vijayawada, became final and conclusive on 22-9-1970. Therefore, there cannot be any landlord and tenant relationship between Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy or his legal representatives and defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 and the 7th defendant. The attachment of the schedule lands made by the T.R.O., Vijayawada, became final and conclusive on 22-9-1970. (f) It is further pleaded that after the suit filed by defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.22 of 1969 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, was dismissed, they remained silent from 22-9-1970 till the sale was held by the T.R.O. on 06-10-1979 pursuant to the attachment that became final and conclusive under the Income Tax Act. Though the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by them after sale and the suit filed by them in O.S.No.26 of 1979 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, were dismissed, defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 and the 7th defendant claim to be in possession of the schedule lands as tenants under Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy. As already stated, there was never any landlord and tenant relationship between Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy or his legal representatives and defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 and the 7th defendant. The 2nd defendant has been an employee in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., and he has been residing at Visakhapatnam; the 3rd defendant is the mother of defendants 4 to 6 and she has been putting up with her sons at Visakhapatnam. The 4th defendant is an employee in Dredging Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam and he has been residing at Visakhapatnam. The 5th defendant is an employee in Aruna Jute Mills, V.T. Agraharam; the 6th defendant is a student residing at Visakhapatnam. The 7th defendant is the brother-in-law of defendants 1 and 2 and 4 to 6 and he is a dependant on them. The 1st defendant is sufficiently aged. Thus, none of the defendants can be said to be in possession of the schedule lands as tenants and cultivated them as tenants. Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 have been claiming always to be in possession of the lands as tenants. The 1st defendant is sufficiently aged. Thus, none of the defendants can be said to be in possession of the schedule lands as tenants and cultivated them as tenants. Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 4 to 6 have been claiming always to be in possession of the lands as tenants. Even in the writ appeal filed by them in the year 1985, they claim to be in possession of the said lands as tenants under Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy or his legal representatives. They never asserted any hostile title nor did they set up title in themselves in respect of the schedule lands to the notice and knowledge of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy or his legal representatives or to the Income Tax Department including the T.R.O., or to the plaintiffs. For the first time the defendants set up title in themselves in respect of the suit lands in the suit filed by them against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.11 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. By such assertion, in the year 1987, they cannot acquire any prescriptive title to the suit schedule lands. Thus, the defendants have absolutely no right or title to be in possession of the schedule lands either as lessees or under the prescriptive title said to have been acquired by them. Their alleged tenancy rights, if any, are not by their open denial of the title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendants are in wrongful possession of the schedule lands and they are liable to be evicted. They are also liable to pay mesne profits for the years 1986-87 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per acre which comes to Rs.27,000/-. As the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit lands and sought to have the sale held by the T.R.O. on 06-10-1979 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, the suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule lands and for recovery of possession of the said lands after evicting the defendants therefrom and for the recovery of mesne profits for the years 1986-87. Hence, the suit. 5. The 5th defendant in O.S.No.7 of 1996 filed a written statement and the other defendants adopted the same. Hence, the suit. 5. The 5th defendant in O.S.No.7 of 1996 filed a written statement and the other defendants adopted the same. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 5th defendant, which was adopted by the other defendants, is as follows: It is denied that the said Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy is still the owner and pattadar of the plaint schedule lands and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. They pleaded ignorance about the arrears of income tax of late Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy. The sale of plaint schedule lands said to have been held in auction on 06-10-1979 by the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, for Rs.33,670/- in favour of the plaintiffs and the confirmation of sale by the said T.R.O. and issuing a sale certificate on 25-3-1986 in favour of the plaintiffs is not valid and binding on these defendants. The plaintiffs will not acquire any right, title and interest much less possession in the plaint schedule lands. They denied that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule lands and are entitled to immediate possession of the suit lands. They denied that the plaintiffs are not parties and are not aware of the proceedings taken by the defendants before the T.R.O. and in the High Court. The defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 1987 (renumbered as O.S. 6 of 1996) questioning the validity and to quash and set aside the claim order in O.P.No.116/79-80 in S.R. Nos.2 to 9/VZM passed by the T.R.O. of Income Tax Department and to set aside the auction sale held and confirmed in favour of the plaintiffs and some other people regarding the suit lands and some other lands, holding that these defendants are the absolute owners and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and some other lands and also for permanent injunction, restraining the plaintiffs and others in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of these defendants in the suit lands and some other lands. The Court granted interim injunction against the plaintiffs and others in I.A.No.88/1987. It is stated that the plaint pleadings in O.S.No.6 of 1996 are the written statement contentions in this suit i.e. O.S.No.7 of 1996. The sale held for the alleged arrears of income tax of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy of the suit lands is not valid and binding on these defendants. It is stated that the plaint pleadings in O.S.No.6 of 1996 are the written statement contentions in this suit i.e. O.S.No.7 of 1996. The sale held for the alleged arrears of income tax of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy of the suit lands is not valid and binding on these defendants. The said sale is liable to be set aside under the law and fact as well. These defendants are having their houses in part of the suit lands and residing with their families since a very long time. These defendants and their ancestors raised some varieties of trees in part of the suit lands long before and cultivating the suit lands in their own rights since a long time. The relevant ryotwari pattas are also issued in the names of defendants for the suit lands. The relevant revenue records of the village also reveal that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands in their own individual right. Even if these defendants deemed to be tenants for the suit lands, they got right, title and interest and possession in the suit lands; hence also the sale held in favour of the plaintiffs for the suit lands, is not valid and further, the plaintiffs are not entitled for physical possession of the suit lands. In any view of the matter, the suit filed by the plaintiffs itself is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. The Court fee paid is not proper and correct. The cause of action alleged in the plaint is also not proper and correct and the suit on the said cause of action is not maintainable. The plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration and possession for the suit lands and for mesne profits of Rs.27,000/- and for future profits as claimed in the suit either under law or under fact. There are no merits or bona fides in the suit and the suit is barred by time. The suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The suit is not maintainable under law and fact as well and liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.7 of 1996 : (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration of title and possession as prayed for ? The suit is not maintainable under law and fact as well and liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.7 of 1996 : (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration of title and possession as prayed for ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mesne profits ? and (3) To what relief ? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 is examined and Ex.A-1 is marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 is examined and Exs.B-1 to B-28 are marked in O.S.No.7 of 1996. 8. Originally, the defendants in O.S.No.7 of 1996 filed O.S.No.6 of 1996 before District Court, Vizianagaram, for claiming the relief of setting aside the sale certificate issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, by holding that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 1996 are having ownership rights in the plaint schedule property and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Both these suits i.e. O.S.Nos.7 of 1996 and 6 of 1996 on the file of District Court, Vizianagaram, are clubbed and common judgment is being pronounced by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 31-3-1997 by holding that the suit in O.S.No.6 of 1996 is dismissed and the suit in O.S.No.7 of 1996 is decreed in part holding that the plaintiffs are having right of owners of the property as lessors and further holding that nobody is in possession of the plaint schedule property, the plaint schedule property is acquired by the State Government and the amount is deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) before the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Vizianagaram and the plaintiffs are entitled to 35% of the compensation amount and the remaining balance of 65% of compensation is entitled by the lessees/defendants. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs herein filed the present appeal questioning the finding of title as lessors and also order of apportionment in the compensation amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. Whereas, the appeal A.S.No.1805 of 1998 is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 1996, but the said appeal was not pressed on 24-4-2024 and the same is also endorsed on the grounds of appeal by the learned counsel for appellants. Therefore, the said appeal A.S.No.1805 of 1998 is dismissed as not pressed. Whereas, the appeal A.S.No.1805 of 1998 is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 1996, but the said appeal was not pressed on 24-4-2024 and the same is also endorsed on the grounds of appeal by the learned counsel for appellants. Therefore, the said appeal A.S.No.1805 of 1998 is dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the present appeal A.S.No.748 of 1997 has to be decided by this Court. 9. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, through virtual hearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel for respondents. 10. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants would contend that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of apportionment of compensation with respect to the suit schedule lands between the appellants and the respondents. He would further contend that the trial Court went beyond the scope of the suit in declaring that the appellants and the respondents are entitled to share the compensation in the ratio of 35% : 65%. He would further contend that the appellants purchased the suit schedule property in the auction held by the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, therefore, the appellants are having right and title in the plaint schedule property. He would further contend that Civil Court has no jurisdiction with regard to the apportionment of compensation paid by the State Government for the plaint schedule lands which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. He would further contend that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the findings recorded by the trial Court in its judgment. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in part and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings given by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.7 of 1996. 12. Now, the points for determination are : (1) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property ? (2) Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the appellants herein are entitled to 35% of the compensation amount and the respondents herein are entitled to the remaining balance of 65% of the compensation amount from out of the amount deposited by the LAO before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram and the suit is decreed in part ? and (3) To what extent ? 13. Points 1 and 2:- Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property ? and Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the appellants herein are entitled to 35% of the compensation amount and the respondents herein are entitled to the remaining balance of 65% of the compensation amount from out of the amount deposited by the LAO before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram and the suit is decreed in part ? The undisputed facts are that the suit schedule lands are ryotwari lands situated in Kanapaka village and one Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy of Vizianagaram is the original owner and pattadar of the said lands and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and the said Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy fell in arrears of income tax to the Central Government and in execution of the certificates forwarded by the Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada, for the recovery of arrears of income tax notices, the plaint schedule lands were attached by the Tax Recovery Officer (T.R.O.), Visakhapatnam, in the year 1967 and brought to sale. It is not in dispute by both sides that ultimately the sale of the plaint schedule property was held in a public auction on 06-10-1979 by the T.R.O. and the plaintiffs were the highest bidders in the said public auction and the sale was knocked down in their favour for Rs.33,670/-. It is also not in dispute that the entire bid amount was deposited by the plaintiffs and the sale was confirmed by the T.R.O. and a sale certificate was also issued. The contention of the respondents herein is that the T.R.O. failed to follow the prescribed procedure for conducting the auction. 14. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs relied on the sale certificate dated 25-3-1986 said to have been issued by the Income Tax authorities, which is marked as Ex.A-1 in O.S.No.7 of 1996. 15. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.1 i.e. the 1st plaintiff. 14. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs relied on the sale certificate dated 25-3-1986 said to have been issued by the Income Tax authorities, which is marked as Ex.A-1 in O.S.No.7 of 1996. 15. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.1 i.e. the 1st plaintiff. As per his evidence, he is the 1st plaintiff and originally the suit was filed by his father when they were minors and the 2nd plaintiff is his sister and they purchased the land of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy in the income tax auction which was held in the year 1979 and the auction was conducted by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam and after confirmation of the sale, the T.R.O. issued a sale certificate. As stated supra, the defendants are also admitting that the plaintiffs herein purchased the plaint schedule property in an auction conducted by the T.R.O. and the sale was also confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued on 25-3-1986. The same is not at all disputed by the defendants. 16. The contention of the defendants, as per the written statement filed by the defendants, is that the said sale is not valid and the same is liable to be set aside under law and the defendants are having their houses in part of the suit schedule lands and residing with their families since a very long time and the defendants and their ancestors raised some varieties of trees in part of the suit lands and they are also cultivating the suit lands in their own rights since a long time. Admittedly, the attachment on the suit schedule lands and sale conducted by the Income Tax authorities was challenged by the defendants vide W.P.No.6772 of 1979 under Ex.A-3 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 15-3-1985, against the said orders the defendants filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.571 of 1985 under Ex.A-2 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22-7-1985. The 2nd defendant filed a claim application before the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam, by challenging that the attachment of proclamation of sale as illegal, the same was also dismissed by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam, vide its order dated 25-3-1986. The 2nd defendant filed a claim application before the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam, by challenging that the attachment of proclamation of sale as illegal, the same was also dismissed by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam, vide its order dated 25-3-1986. Prior to that, the defendants also filed a civil suit before Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, vide O.S.No.26 of 1969 with a prayer to set aside the attachment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada and the same was also dismissed on merits by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram, on 22-7-1970 and the same is ended with finality. Exs.A-30 and A-31 are the judgment and decree in O.S.No.26 of 1969 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. The defendants having exhausted all the remedies after defeating the same in all the aforesaid case proceedings including in the writ court, now they cannot canvass that the sale held by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam, is not valid. 17. The defendants herein also filed a suit O.S.No.6 of 1996 with a prayer to set aside the claim order and sale conducted by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam and declare that the defendants herein i.e. the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 1996 are having ownership rights and they also sought for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants herein filed A.S.No.1805 of 1998 and the same was dismissed as not pressed. 18. The trial Court came to the conclusion in its judgment that the ancestors of defendants are inducted as tenants of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy. As seen from the written statement of the defendants, there is no whisper in the written statement of defendants that the ancestors of defendants are inducted as tenants of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy in the plaint schedule property. The defendants simply pleaded in the written statement that even if these defendants deemed to be tenants for the suit lands, they got right, title and interest and possession in the said lands. The respondents herein did not specifically plead in the written statement that their ancestors or themselves are the tenants of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy in respect of the plaint schedule property. 19. The defendants relied on the sole evidence of D.W.1. In the case on hand, the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1. The respondents herein did not specifically plead in the written statement that their ancestors or themselves are the tenants of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy in respect of the plaint schedule property. 19. The defendants relied on the sole evidence of D.W.1. In the case on hand, the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1. D.W.1 admits in his evidence in cross-examination that the plaint schedule lands were leased out by Puvvada Satyanarayana to his grandfather in or about 1940 and there is no written lease agreement for such alleged lease. He admits that he does not personally know Puvvada Satyanarayana and he does not know how many years the alleged lease was given to his grandfather and he pleaded ignorance about the land revenue paid by his grandfather and also the amount paid by his grandfather to the landlord. He pleaded ignorance in which year Puvvada Satyanarayana died. He further admits that before 1969, the Income Tax authorities attached those properties for arrears of income tax and O.S.No.26 of 1969 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, was filed by them was dismissed way back in the year 1969 or 1970. He further admits that the plaint schedule lands were sold in public auction in the year 1979. He further admits that they did not pay any cist to Puvvada family either during the pendency of writ petition before the High Court or subsequent thereon and he did not file any receipt paying to Puvvada Satyanarayana and he did not file any property tax receipt pertaining to the house which was paid during the life time of his grandfather and he is the person who instructed him to get the documents and instructions to conduct proceedings of the present suit to his Advocate. The above admissions of D.W.1 clearly go to show that there is no evidence on record to show that the defendants or ancestors of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy are the tenants of original owner by name Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy. The above admissions of D.W.1 clearly go to show that there is no evidence on record to show that the defendants or ancestors of Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy are the tenants of original owner by name Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy. It is the case of both the parties that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy and the said Puvvada Satyanarayana Murthy fell in arrears of income tax to the Income Tax Department and the Income Tax authorities in execution of the arrears of income tax dues forwarded by the Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada, for the recovery of arrears of income tax, the plaint schedule properties were attached by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam, in the year 1967 and brought it to sale and ultimately the schedule property was sold in public auction on 06-10-1979 by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam and the plaintiffs herein participated in the said auction and the sale was confirmed in favour of the plaintiffs being the highest bidders and the sale certificate was also issued on 25-3-1986 by the T.R.O., Visakhapatnam. As stated supra, the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A-1 sale certificate, the entire proceedings before the T.R.O. including the sale conducted by the T.R.O. and the sale certificate issued by the T.R.O. was challenged by the defendants before the Civil Court including the Writ Court and in all the said proceedings, the respondents herein were defeated and the auction conducted by the T.R.O. was upheld by all the Courts including the Writ Court. 20. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendants are not the owners of plaint schedule property and that the plaintiffs herein are the owners of plaint schedule property, but the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are lessors and the defendants are the lessees. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendants are lessees of the plaint schedule property. Moreover, there is no specific plea in the written statement itself that the respondents herein are the tenants of the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, no issue was framed by the trial Court with regard to the alleged tenancy of the defendants. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that there was a subsisting lease either at the time of commencement of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 or the A.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974 to claim protection under the Amended Act. Admittedly, no issue was framed by the trial Court with regard to the alleged tenancy of the defendants. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that there was a subsisting lease either at the time of commencement of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 or the A.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974 to claim protection under the Amended Act. Absolutely, no scrap of paper is filed by the defendants to show that they are the tenants of plaint schedule property by the date of institution of the suit or prior to the institution of the suit. 21. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to apportion the compensation deposited by the LAO before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/ Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court held that the defendants are the tenants, therefore they are entitled to receive 65% of the compensation amount deposited before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, by the LAO and the plaintiffs being the owners are entitled to 35% of the compensation from out of the total amount deposited by the LAO. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendants herein are the tenants of plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit or prior to the filing of the suit. As stated supra, there is no specific pleading by the defendants in the written statement itself that themselves or their predecessors-in-title are the tenants of original owner Puvvada Satyanarayana. Admittedly, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction with regard to apportionment of compensation deposited by the State Government before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, because the suit schedule lands are acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act and total compensation was deposited by the LAO before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. 22. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Tenancy Act to enable the alleged tenant to claim any share in the compensation amount paid under the Land Acquisition Act. 22. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Tenancy Act to enable the alleged tenant to claim any share in the compensation amount paid under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the case of both the parties that the suit schedule lands were acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act by the LAO and compensation amount was deposited by the State Government before the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the plaint schedule lands were divided into plots and the same were allotted to the weaker sections by the State Government way back at about 25 or 30 years ago. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery of possession of the plaint schedule lands. The appellants herein are now questioning in the present appeal about their rights as owners of the plaint schedule lands and also with regard to the alleged apportionment awarded by the Tribunal in a land acquisition proceedings. As stated supra, the appellants herein i.e. the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of District Court, Vizianagaram, are having right and title in the plaint schedule property and further, the Civil Court i.e. District Court, Vizianagaram, has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of apportionment of compensation amount deposited by the State Government before the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, for the plaint schedule lands acquired by the LAO under the Land Acquisition Act. 23. Point No.3:- To what extent ? With the above observations, the appeal is allowed by holding that the respondents/defendants are not the tenants of plaint schedule property and the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 1996 are having right and title in the plaint schedule property. The apportionment of compensation amount as ordered by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.