JUDGMENT : P.SREE SUDHA, J. SECOND APPEAL No.321 of 2022 This second appeal is preferred by Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad represented by its Principal, Government of Telangana represented by the Secretary, PWD (R &D), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and the E.E., South Building Division, Khairatabad, Hyderabad/defendants against Mahanth Mahesh Das & Smt.Gangabai (died per LRs respondent/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4), Anand Das & Meera Chandr Sekhar (plaintiffs). 2. O.S.No.313 of 1981 was filed by plaintiffs for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 03.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal A.S.No.291 of 2005 and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this second appeal is preferred by the defendants in the suit with the following substantial questions of law: “i. Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and since the land being Inam land, the authorities under the Inam (Talanana Area) Abolition Act, 1955 have the jurisdiction and since the plaintiffs have not obtained any Occupancy Rights Certificate, the suit schedule lands are deemed to have vested with the Government? ii. Whether the lower appellate Court misconstrued the doctrine of Estoppel in view of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act? Whether Lower Appellate Court misread Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, since, the right, title interest and relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants having been specifically denied the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiffs to prove their title, interest and rights over the suit schedule property? iii. Whether the pleadings of the Appellant with regard to denial of jural relationship made in written statement amounts to denial of relationship of land lord and tenant in the teeth of appreciation of the provisions of Inam Abolition Act, 1955? iv. Whether documents of title which are the foundation of any rights of the parties stood proved and disproved by the respective parties in accordance with Section 100 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act? v. Whether the suit lads are temple lands and after abolition of Inams Act, 1955 have vested with the state as per section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955? vi. v. Whether the suit lads are temple lands and after abolition of Inams Act, 1955 have vested with the state as per section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955? vi. The respondent-plaintiff have neither pleaded nor proved Ex.A.1 to A.25 in order to prove their title as per the Indian Evidence Act? vii. Whether the Courts below have taken judicial notice and cognizance of the survey records produced by the Appellants as per the Evidence Act? viii. Whether finding of the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit? ix. Whether misconstruing the evidence of plaintiff is contrary to Evidence Act? And also non-consideration of material evidence placed by the Appellant is in itself contrary to Evidence Act. x. whether reasons given by the lower Courts are found to be perverse and amounts to be the substantial questions of law?” 3. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel at length, perused the record and also documents filed by them. 4. The parties herein referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 5. The plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the suit land bearing survey Nos.18 and 20 admeasuring 2 bighas situated at Notaguda Village, Baghat Taluq of Atraf, Balda District now Rangamahal Road, Hyderabad, which was obtained through the ancestor of the plaintiff viz., Mahant Balramdas, who was granted inam through Muntakab dated 2 nd Jamadius Sani 1301 Hijri relates to file No.477/1288, jurisdiction No.3415 and Tameel No.23452. The plaintiff is hereditary Mahant of Sri Laxminarayana Temple and his succession was recognized vide File No.79/1 dated 1stThir 1357 Fasil of Ecclesiastical Department H.E.H. the Nizam. About more than 75 years ago the suit land was given on lease to the then British Resident on a monthly rent of Rs.10/-. The said rent was paid to the previous Mahant through C.P.W.D Nagpur Division up to 16.02.1948 and thereafter the payments were made by the Assistant Engineer No. II under the Directive of C.P.W.D, Nagpur as per the letter No.2903 dated 10.08.1948.At present, the suit land is under the occupation of the third defendant viz., the Principal Osmania Medical College as a lessee of the plaintiff. The tenancy is oral from month to month as per English Calendar and the tenancy month commences from the first of the English Calendar month and expires on the last date of such month. The tenancy is oral from month to month as per English Calendar and the tenancy month commences from the first of the English Calendar month and expires on the last date of such month. The defendant No.2 was paying rents, but abruptly stopped payments w.e.f. 1972. Last time rent was paid on 08.01.1973 through cheque No.691185 under reference No.41/A/63-64 at page No.151 and thereafter despite repeated demands, reminders and representations made to the State and Central Government neither rent was paid nor given any reply. The defendants also raised illegal structures on the suit land without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff though Legal Notice dated 02.04.1980 got issued by the plaintiff, through his counsel, the tenancy of the defendants was terminated from 30.04.1980. Despite the termination notice, the defendants failed to vacate the suit land and deliver the possession from May, 1980. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages @ Rs.2,000/- per month and arrears of Rs.880/- from 01.01.1973 up to the end of 1980 and the notice of termination under Section 106 of T.P.Act, dated 02.04.1980 terminating the tenancy of the defendants w.e.f.30.04.1980. However, his claim towards arrears of rent is restricted for Rs.280/- from January,1978 to April,1980. Under Section 80 of C.P.C, the notice was caused on all the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendants received the said notice, but failed to give reply. Hence, the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land by demolishing the structures thereon and arrears of rent of Rs.280/- and damages @ Rs.2,000/- per month for wrongful use and occupation of the suit land, despite termination of tenancy from 01.05.1980. 6. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant Nos.1 and 2. In the written statement, it is denied that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the land bearing in survey No.18 and 20 admeasuring 2 bighas. As per their records, the land is surrounded by big compound wall constructed by the British resident of Hyderabad prior to Independence and the same is in the occupation of the Osmania Medical College i.e., defendant No.3. It is denied that the suit land was granted as inam to one Mahant Balaramdas the ancestor of the plaintiff through Muntakab and no documents in that behalf were produced in the Court. It is denied that the suit land was granted as inam to one Mahant Balaramdas the ancestor of the plaintiff through Muntakab and no documents in that behalf were produced in the Court. It is also denied that the land is leased to the then British resident on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- about 75 years ago. It is further submitted that the land rents were paid for the years 1972-73 but denied that the tenancy is month to month and rents are paid month to month. As the plaintiff failed to produce the authority to receive the payments when asked the rents were not paid from 1973 onwards. The plaintiff has no manner or right to terminate the tenancy through notice dated 02.04.1980 without establishing right, title or interest over the suit land. The claim of the plaintiff for damages @ Rs.2,000/- is imaginary and arbitrary. The plaintiff is not the legal owner of the suit property as such he is not entitled to claim arrears besides the suit claimed is barred by limitation and requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 7. Initially, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 14.10.1988 and aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.285 of 19899 stating that previous A.G.P did not pursue the matter and failed to inform the defendant and therefore the defendants could not adduce evidence before the lower Court by the Principal of Osmania Medical College. He filed affidavit, stating that previous A.G.P did not inform the defendants about the stage of the case and in view of the certification, the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants will be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on their behalf to contest the suit. Therefore, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court on 14.10.1988 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal after giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff and the defendants to adduce additional evidence and to decide the suit afresh by the trial Curt and directed that the suit may be disposed off within six months from the date of receipt of the records. After the suit is remanded back from this Court for disposal afresh and sufficient opportunity was given to the defendants for filing the additional written statement and an opportunity was given to both sides to adduce additional evidence if any and the matter was adjourned from time to time and during the course, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have died and the legal representatives were brought on record and amendment was carried out and neat copy of the plaint was filed and again opportunity was given to the defendants for filing additional written statement and the defendants though availed several opportunities, failed to file any additional written statement and the learned A.G.P on 28.07.2004 reported no additional written statement and therefore evidence of the plaintiffs was closed and posted for the evidence of the defendants. 8. During the course of trial the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.A.1 to A.25. On behalf of the defendants, the Principal of the defendant No.3-college was examined as the D.W.1 and also examined D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.17. Subsequently, during the course of the trial Exs.A.1 to A.25 returned to the advocate for the plaintiff as per the order in I.A.No.798 of 2002 dated 19.01.2002. But during the course of resubmission, the advocate for the plaintiff failed to resubmit Exs.A.21 to A.23. Therefore, the documents for the plaintiff on record are Exs.A.1 to A.21 and A.24 to A.25. 9. Plaintiff stated that they obtained suit schedule property from their ancestor as inam through Muntakab dated 2ndJamadius Sani 1301 Hijri. The plaintiff is the hereditary Mahant of the Lakshminarayana Temple herein after called as suit temple and his succession to the said temple was recognized by the Ecclesiastical Department. It is further submitted that about 75 years back, the suit land was given on lease to British resident for the construction of the residency compound wall on rent of Rs.10/- per month. The said rent was paid to the previous Mahant of the plaintiff and subsequently to the mother of the plaintiff while he was minor under the guardianship of his mother till 1972. From 1973 onwards the defendants failed to pay the rent despite demands and as a result he terminated the tenancy of the defendants w.e.f.1 st May, 1980 after issuing notice under Section 106 of T.P.Act. From 1973 onwards the defendants failed to pay the rent despite demands and as a result he terminated the tenancy of the defendants w.e.f.1 st May, 1980 after issuing notice under Section 106 of T.P.Act. He also issued notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C as required to all the defendants but no reply has received. Hence the suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, mesne profits w.e.f.01.05.1980. 10. Defendants in their written statement stated that they have paid rents to the plaintiffs till March, 1973 and subsequently they stopped paying rents and on the other hand they asked the plaintiffs to produce the documents relating to the title over the suit schedule property and that they have never claimed the right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. It was observed that for the first time defendants have choosen to raise the voice in the evidence, have got filed the affidavit by the Principal of Osmania Medical College alleging that the suit land belongs to Government and property claimed by the plaintiffs is situated at a far away place to the suit land that the suit land is situated in the river bed of Musi and also raised an objection that it is inam land and further stated as the inam lands were abolished they are vested with the Government. The trial Court observed that without any pleading, the said objection was raised in the evidence and instead of granting several adjournments, no additional written statement was filed even after remanding the matter, the additional written statement was not filed and they reported no additional written statement as such defendant No.3 stopped raising objections during the evidence stage. D.W.1 admits that he has no personal knowledge and he is speaking as per the records. In the absence of record, his oral evidence is without any basis. Further, any amount of evidence without pleading cannot be looked into as per the citation reported in “Bandi Narsaiah and Ors. v. V.Mallesham” , [ 1997 (4) ALT 583 ] 11. D.Ws.2 and 3 are M.R.O and Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records respectively were examined to show that the suit land within its boundaries is situated in the same Block No.A and the same ward No.193 in which the Medical College is situated. v. V.Mallesham” , [ 1997 (4) ALT 583 ] 11. D.Ws.2 and 3 are M.R.O and Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records respectively were examined to show that the suit land within its boundaries is situated in the same Block No.A and the same ward No.193 in which the Medical College is situated. D.W.1 categorically stated that suit schedule land within its boundaries is in the possession of the defendant No.3-Medical College. Even defendant No.3 admitted payment of rents. It was also observed that in case of any conflict between boundaries, survey number and extent, boundaries will prevail. The trial Court further relied upon a citation reported in “Atyam Veeraju and others v. Eechitti Venkanna and others” , [ AIR 1966 SC 629 ] in which it was held as follows: “During the continuance of the tenancy, a tenant will not be permitted to deny the title of the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, during the continuance of the tenancy, the tenant cannot acquire by prescription a permanent right of occupancy in derogation of the landlord’s title by mere assertion of such a right to the knowledge of the landlord”. 12. In this case, the tenants raised objection regarding the title of the plaintiff during the pendency of the proceedings. In a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, tenant cannot question the title of the landlord. 13. Defendant No.3 is in possession and occupation of the suit schedule property and that the defendant No.3 is not a Government, but it is a autonomous body and it is for them to show that they obtained suit premises from the Government and they have also to show under what terms and conditions they have obtained the suit property from the Government and what is the quantum of rent for the lease period. Further, it was observed that since the defendants raised new pleas at the time of giving evidence without there being any pleadings, automatically the burden lies on the defendants to prove all those facts. On the other hand as observed supra the defendants have already estopped from raising the said new pleas which cannot be permitted under law. 14. Plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the property and relied upon Munkatab filed under Ex.A.1. He also filed correspondence between Government and their family regarding the payment of rents under Exs.A.2 to A.14. On the other hand as observed supra the defendants have already estopped from raising the said new pleas which cannot be permitted under law. 14. Plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the property and relied upon Munkatab filed under Ex.A.1. He also filed correspondence between Government and their family regarding the payment of rents under Exs.A.2 to A.14. The said correspondence shows that rent was paid to the mother of the plaintiff even after establishing Osmania Medical College in the said premises. The last rent was paid through cheque on 08.01.1973 as such Jural relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed and tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff on 01.05.1980 and he filed office copy of legal notice along with postal acknowledgment and he also gave notice under Section 106 of T.P.Act and filed postal acknowledgments and restricted the arrears of rent to Rs.280/- though the actual arrears is Rs.880/-. Ex.A.21 is the village map of Totaguda containing survey Nos.18 and 20 and the same is a printed map purchased from the land records division. Ex.A.2 is the appointment letter under which plaintiff was appointed as Mahant of the suit temple. Ex.A.23 is the photograph at the time of ceremony of appointment. Ex.A.24 is the certified copy of the Muntakab dated 04.09.1958 Fasli. He was declared as successor in column No.11 in Ex.A.24. P.W.2 also stated that plaintiff was the mahant of the suit from past 30 or 40 years and he was present at the time of his appointment. He identified the signatory of Ex.A.22. The rents were paid to the mother of the plaintiff viz., Nathu Bai who was actual guardian when plaintiff was minor and he was under her guardianship. It was also observed that defendants did not claim in the written statement that they are owner or that the said land was acquired by any other means. 15. It was contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right to question title over the suit land under Section 116 of Evidence Act, as they being his tenants and paid rents to him till 1972. 16. 15. It was contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right to question title over the suit land under Section 116 of Evidence Act, as they being his tenants and paid rents to him till 1972. 16. The trial Court held that plaintiff established the landlord and tenant relationship regarding the payment of arrears of rent and it was also stated that quit notice issued under Section 106 of T.P.Act is valid and proper and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to file separate application under Order 20, Rule 12 for mesne profits. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appeal is preferred. 17. Before the first Appellate Court, the additional grounds were also raised as per I.A.No.762 of 2010. It was stated that plaintiff suppressed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.817 of 1977 dated 21.08.1983 passed by the Court of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirmed in C.C.C.A.No.91 of 1983 by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by judgment and decree dated 15.03.1993 and L.P.A.No.99 of 1993 dated 30.06.2001 and it was raised that fraud was played by the plaintiff. It was further raised that Inams were abolished from 20.07.1955 and they are vested with the state as such plaintiff cannot ask their title before the Civil Court and an enquiry is to be conducted as per the Inams Abolition Act before competent authority. It was also raised that as per Ex.A.24, the property belongs to Endowment Department, but not to the plaintiffs, represented by its Secretary, Commissioner of Endowments and also Collector, Hyderabad District and as such the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Secretary, Endowment Department, Commissioner of Endowment and the Collector of Hyderabad are necessary and proper parties. As per the provisions of A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1987, plaintiffs have no right to institute suit for eviction, but I.A.No.762 of 2010 was dismissed on 13.12.2019 on merits. During the pendency of the appeal, defendants filed I.A.No.426 of 2007 Under Section 63 of Evidence Act and I.A.No.427 of 2007 under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC for receiving of certain documents and the same were allowed and the case was remanded back for receiving of additional documents i.e., Exs.B.18 to B.21 which were marked from defendant No.3 on 15.09.2021 and the record was sent back to the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court considered those documents and also objections raised by the defendants in the suit. It was held by the first Appellate Court that the entire sentence is to be considered for admission and not part of it. The first Appellate Court observed that D.W.3 clearly admitted both in written statement and in his evidence about their having paid rents to the predecessors in a title of the plaintiffs and entire correspondence Exs.A.2 to A.15 was discussed at length by the trial Court and the applicability of Section 116 of the Evidence Act was also dealt with. It was observed by the first Appellate Court that the tenants paid rents to the plaintiffs for many years and as such they cannot question their title at later point of time. 18. Identity of the suit land was also disputed and the Government stated that plaintiffs have not obtained Occupancy Right Certificate and the land pertains to Endowment land. First Appellate Court observed that this point was not raised in the pleadings and subsequently they came up with this issue at a later point of time. D.W.2 stated that it is an Abadi land and its boundaries falls in T.S.No.9 and as per Ex.B.9 it was Grama Kantam. It is further submitted that he did not know when the land was handed over to Osmania Medical College. The pahanies filed under Exs.B.1 to B.10 and also town survey register under Ex.B.11 was considered by the first Appellate Court. Regarding the issues raised by the defendants in the suit that it is an Endowment land and no Registration Certificate was obtained by the plaintiff, it was observed that their arguments are beyond the pleadings in the written statement. Even regarding the receiving of the documents and judgment in O.S.No. 817 of 1977 was also dismissed as they are not relevant for deciding appeal and finally the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Even regarding the receiving of the documents and judgment in O.S.No. 817 of 1977 was also dismissed as they are not relevant for deciding appeal and finally the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others, , [ (2014) 2 SCC 269 ] in which it was held as follows: “It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Kaur and others Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann and others, (2001) 4 SCC 262 in which Section 103 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “103. In any second appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence on the record is sufficient, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal: a) which has not been determined by the lower appellate Court or by both the Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court, or b) which has been wrongly determined by such court or courts by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in Section 100.” The requirements stand specified in Section 103 and nothing short of it will bring it within the ambit of Section 100 since the issue of perversity will also come within the ambit of substantial question of law as noticed above. The legality of finding of fact cannot but be termed to be a question of law. We reiterate however, that there must be a definite finding to that effect in the judgment of the High Court so as to make it evident that Section 100 of the Code stands complied with.” 20. The legality of finding of fact cannot but be termed to be a question of law. We reiterate however, that there must be a definite finding to that effect in the judgment of the High Court so as to make it evident that Section 100 of the Code stands complied with.” 20. The Section 100 of the C.P.C reads as follows: 1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. 2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed exparte. 3) In an appeal under this Section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. 5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question. 21. The first issue is regarding jurisdiction to try the suit land as the inam land and the plaintiffs have not obtained occupancy rights and the second issue is regarding the doctrine of estoppels under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and also regarding jural relationship. The other issue is with regard to vesting of temple lands with the state as per Section 3 of Inam Abolition Act and non-consideration of material evidence filed by them before the trial Court and to take jural notice of the survey reports. Both the trial Court and appellate Courts dealt with all these issues in detail. It cannot be said that the findings are perverse merely because there was difference of opinion by trial Court, this Court cannot interfere with the said judgment and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence of the trial Court at the second appellate stage. 22. The counsel of the appellant argued that Exs.D.1 to D.17 were not considered in detail by the first Appellate Court. 22. The counsel of the appellant argued that Exs.D.1 to D.17 were not considered in detail by the first Appellate Court. In fact, it is a suit for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages filed by the land lord against the defendant way back in the year 1981 and it was decreed. Defendants in the suit preferred the appeal and stated that their AGP could not represent the matter properly and when the matter was remanded back, they did not file additional written statement with the said terms. Subsequently, during the course of time, they sorted out reasons for several issues. Initially, they stated that the land belongs to the Government as it was Inam land and as the plaintiff failed to obtain occupancy rights, it is vested with the Government and they stated that it is an Endowment Land and thus the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and they also filed the copies of the judgment and requested the Court to receive them as additional evidence on the ground that plaintiff played fraud upon them, but the said I.A was dismissed while disposing of the appeal. Obviously, the tenant cannot question the title of the landlord though defendant No.3 paid rents till the year 1972 and suddenly questioned the title of the landlord and stopped paying rents from the year 1973 onwards. They have not filed any documents to show when they entered into lease with the Government and on what terms and for what amount and for how much period. Admittedly, defendant No.3 is a medical college when they are taking the suit schedule properties for lease from the Government there should be authentic document, but they never filed such documents before the Court and they simply denied the title of the plaintiff when he come forward and filed a suit for recovery of possession. Plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 to substantiate his rights from the suit schedule property and also filed Ex.A.22 to show that he was appointed as Mahanth and successor to the said property. Initially, he let it out to British residency for constructing compound wall over the suit schedule property on payment of Rs.10 per month and later constructed medical college and also started paying the same rent till the year 1972 and suddenly stopped paying rent. Initially, he let it out to British residency for constructing compound wall over the suit schedule property on payment of Rs.10 per month and later constructed medical college and also started paying the same rent till the year 1972 and suddenly stopped paying rent. The plaintiff who filed the suit passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and their children came on record as legal heirs and they fought the litigation for nearly 50 years. Government was negligent from the beginning, and they could not pursue the suit properly at the appellate stage. They got it remanded the matter and the matter and even afterwards they never filed additional statement as contended by them in the appeal. They came up with different pleas at different spells of time and without any basis in the pleadings. They have not filed a single document to show that the Government is the owner of the property and the pahanies filed by the defendants were also discussed at length by the first appellate Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in the suit argued that if at all the Government intended to take over the land they should have acquired the same under land acquisition proceedings in stead of troubling the plaintiff herein with long drawn litigation. Though defendants in the suit stated that there is no landlord and tenancy relationship between plaintiff and themselves admittedly, they paid rent till 1972 and later questioned the title of the plaintiff and stopped paying the rents. Initially, it is stated that it belongs to the Government and later stated that it is an inam land and there is no ORC and rights are vested with the state after Inam abolition Act and further come up with the plea of Endowment land at subsequent point of time they have not raised objections by filing additional written statement even after granting of time by first appellate Court by remanding to the trial Court. This clearly shows negligence on the part of the Government and they are responsible for long litigation. In a suit for eviction and arrears of rent they questioned the title of the land lord and successfully dragged the matter for 50 years. This clearly shows negligence on the part of the Government and they are responsible for long litigation. In a suit for eviction and arrears of rent they questioned the title of the land lord and successfully dragged the matter for 50 years. Even now, the second appeal is preferred with the same substantial questions of law and thus this Court finds that there are no merits in the second appeal and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 23. In the result, second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.