JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. B. Nishitha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7. Perused the entire record. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (‘trial Court’), wherein suit filed seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and refund of compensation amount has been decreed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 7/plaintiffs. The parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. During the pendency of the present appeal, this Court granted order of status quo on 13.02.2019 pending disposal of the appeal. When the said order was in force, plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 7 dug three bore wells in the suit schedule property. Out of said three bore wells permission was granted for only one bore well. During the operation of the order of status quo as the plaintiffs dug the bore wells, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed Contempt Case No.1489 of 2019 before this Court with a prayer to punish the plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case: 4. The brief facts of the case are that Plaintiff No.1 filed suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and refund of compensation amount which defendant Nos.1 and 2 received for the landed property acquired by the Government for the construction of Sripada project. The suit is filed with respect to land in Sy.No.409 to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas, Sy.No.410 to an extent of Ac.7-28 guntas, Sy.No.433 to an extent of Ac.1-14 guntas, Sy.No.434 to an extent of Ac.0- 39 guntas, Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.7-39 guntas, Sy.No.436 to an extent of Ac.3-32 guntas and Sy.No.555 to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas of Kalvacherla Village shivar of Kamanpur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’). 5. After service of summons in the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 made their appearance, but defendant No.1 alone filed the written statement and defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are official parties remained ex parte. 6. 5. After service of summons in the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 made their appearance, but defendant No.1 alone filed the written statement and defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are official parties remained ex parte. 6. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, while so, he addressed a letter to defendant No.3 on 28.12.2005 to not to change the entries with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the third parties. By taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff No.1 during the year 2007-08, defendant No.1 on the basis of fabricated documents by colluding with official defendants and managed to mutate the suit schedule property in his favour. Plaintiff No.1 never sold the suit schedule property in favour of anybody. After learning about the mutation in favour of defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 filed an application before defendant No.5 leading to enquiry vide proceedings No.B/635/08, in which notices were issued to plaintiff No.1 as well as defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 submitted to defendant Nos.3 to 5 that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have illegally claimed compensation of Rs.5,31,350/- with respect to land in Sy.Nos.410 and 435 admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.1-24 guntas, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Manthani, while acquiring land for Sripada Project. Plaintiff No.1 claimed that the compensation amount ought to have been deposited before the Court for adjudication of the matter under Section 30 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. However, the same was illegally paid to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice to defendant Nos.1 to 5 on 09.11.2010 for return of compensation amount along with interest. Thereafter, a public notice was issued cautioning general public not to purchase the suit schedule property. While so, defendant Nos.1 and 2 refused the notice, but have got issued reply notice with false allegations. In the circumstances, the suit under appeal has been filed. 7. The written statement filed by defendant No.1 is to the effect that plaintiff No.1 is owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Manohara Bai long back enjoying the same up to the year 1980 and the said lands were sold to defendant No.1 on 16.05.1980 for valuable consideration of Rs.8500/- through an unregistered simple sale deed in the presence of Komuraiah Gopal, Sailu and Lachaiah. Further, possession was handed over to defendant No.1 and ever since, defendant No.1 is enjoying the property as absolute owner and possessor. The Government has acquired some portion of land from Sy.No.410 and compensation was paid to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, who was owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.7-39 guntas in Sy.No.435 was paid compensation by the Government after acquisition of the said land. Plaintiff No.1 after selling the suit schedule property was residing at Hyderabad and never visited the Kalwacherla shivar village for about 30 years. On account of increase in the land value, plaintiff No.1 developed greedy eye and is trying to grab the land as well as the compensation paid to defendant No.1 by the Government. The enquiry ordered by defendant Nos.3 to 5 was kept in cold storage after verifying the records. Further, it is pleaded that defendant Nos.3 to 5 conducted spot enquiry by examining the neighbours of the suit schedule property and found that plaintiff No.1 has no claim and therefore, paid compensation to defendant No.1. The name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the year 2007-08, though he purchased the land way back in the year 1980. The revenue records were mutated in his favour and pattedar passbooks and title deeds are issued. The unregistered sale deed was lost in transit and police complaint was given. Defendant No.1 contended that plaintiff No.1 ought to have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, seeking cancellation of the pattedar passbooks and title deeds and 13-B and 13-C certificate issued to defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 had knowledge about possession and enjoyment of land by defendant No.1, for 30 years he kept quiet and suddenly filed suit. All the documents of defendant No.1 show that plaintiff No.1 sold suit schedule property and therefore, sought dismissal of the suit. 8. On the basis of the facts and pleadings by both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title to the suit land? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of Rs.5,31,350/- from defendant Nos.1 and 2? 4. To what relief?” 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title to the suit land? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of Rs.5,31,350/- from defendant Nos.1 and 2? 4. To what relief?” 9. The plaintiffs got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20 and defendants got examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-19. 10. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit leading to filing of the present first appeal. Grounds of Appeal:- 11. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, but the said burden is shifted to defendants and thereby, the suit has been decreed. The land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, and the award has become final, as the plaintiffs never questioned the validity of the award. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and even proceedings initiated under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (‘ROR Act’) became final as no appeal or revision has been filed against the said orders. Non-presentation of ROR file was held against defendant Nos.1 and 2, when it is duty of the plaintiffs to take necessary steps to produce the record. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have already produced evidence under Exs.B-8 to B-19 for which there is no rebuttal evidence. The prayer for correction of revenue records is not maintainable and the procedure prescribed under ROR Act has to be followed. There is an erroneous finding by the trial Court that the plaintiffs have substantiated their title having observed that the plaintiffs did not even produce the sale deed though, it is purchased from Manohara Bai. Only on the basis of the admissions made by defendant No.1, the suit has been decreed. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 12. Now, the points for consideration in the present first appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the findings given by the trial Court in respect of the three issues are sustainable? 2. To what relief? Arguments of the appellants:- 13. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 12. Now, the points for consideration in the present first appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the findings given by the trial Court in respect of the three issues are sustainable? 2. To what relief? Arguments of the appellants:- 13. During the arguments in the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that in any case the burden of proof of title is on the plaintiffs. Whereas, only in the instant case the said burden is shifted to defendant No.1 and adverse inference is drawn against defendant No.1 for failure to provide the said record. In that regard, the following findings of the trial Court are emphasized: “28. …Defendant No.1 is not able to produce any record to show that he has paid the requisite registration charges before he obtained the alleged mutation proceedings.” 14. On the basis of observation of the trial Court, it is contended that there is an error committed in placing the burden of proof on the shoulders of the defendants, when it is the burden of the plaintiffs to prove their case for declaration of title. 15. An objection is taken on examination of General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) holder as P.W.1. In that context, a reference is made to the judgment in T. Penchalaiah v. Jaladanki Saroja , 2006 (6) ALD 560 , wherein it is held as under: “16. …though a person can represent a party to the suit proceedings as GPA, such GPA or Special Power of Attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of the party, whom he/she is representing but can depose as a separate witness speaking to the facts, which is personally aware of.” 16. It is further argued that no value can be placed on evidence of P.W.1, who is GPA holder and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs should fail. Lastly, it is argued that the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sufficient evidence on record to show that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.1 from deceased-plaintiff No.1 and ample revenue record is produced in proof of the ownership and possession of defendant No.1 and therefore, sought to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. Arguments of the respondents:- 17. Arguments of the respondents:- 17. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7/plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 argued that the deceased-plaintiff No.1 had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1965 from one Manohara Bai, who is sister-in-law of defendant No.1. This fact is admitted by defendant No.1 himself both through pleadings as well as evidence. While so, taking advantage of his position as Sarpanch of village, defendant No.1, on the basis of fabricated documents got issued 13-B and 13-C certificates in his favour and also got his name mutated in revenue record with effect from the year 2007-08. Further, on the basis of said false entries compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Manthani, while acquiring land in Sy.Nos.410 and 435 admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.1-24 guntas, for Sripada Project was taken by defendant No.1. It is argued that though title deed is not produced by plaintiff No.1, the very admission of sale of suit schedule property by Manohara Bai in favour of plaintiff No.1 by defendant No.1 as D.W.1 is sufficient to prove the title of plaintiffs. It is argued that the admitted facts need not be proven as per Section 58 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. Once the title of the plaintiffs is established the onus shifts to defendant No.1 to prove that plaintiff No.1 has sold suit schedule property under an unregistered sale deed and show the basis for issuance of 13-B and 13-C certificates and mutation. In the instant case, defendant No.1 is claiming that he has lost the unregistered sale deed which was executed by plaintiff No.1. Not only there is failure to produce the unregistered sale deed, but there is also failure to examine any witness allegedly in whose presence plaintiff No.1 executed unregistered sale deed. Except the revenue records, which are fabricated by defendant No.1 by abusing his position as Sarpanch, there is no evidence whatsoever in favour of defendant No.1, as such it is argued that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings given by learned trial Court and as such sought dismissal of the appeal. Findings: 18. When the record is perused, it is seen that plaintiff No.1 is claiming that he is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Manohara Bai. This fact is not disputed by the contesting defendant Nos.1 and 2. Findings: 18. When the record is perused, it is seen that plaintiff No.1 is claiming that he is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Manohara Bai. This fact is not disputed by the contesting defendant Nos.1 and 2. Exs.A-13 and 14 are original pattedar passbook and title deeds filed by the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule property which was purchased by plaintiff No.1 from Manohara Bai stands in his name. Defendant No.1 also admitted that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from Manohara Bai in the written statement. Relevant pleadings are extracted and produced below: “2. …The plaintiff purchased the suit lands above mentioned from one Manohara Bai, W/o.Radha Kishan Rao long back and he enjoyed the same upto 1980. That the plaintiff on 16-05-1980 sold away the suit lands above mentioned to the defendant No.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs.8500/- vide a simple un-registered sale deed executed in the presence of one Komuraiah Gopal, Sailu and Lachaiah, S/o.Rajaiah and handed over the possession of the suit lands to the defendant No.1 on the date of sale itself.” 19. Further, defendant No.1 as D.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted the title of plaintiff No.1, the relevant portion of the evidence of D.W.1 is extracted and produced below: “It is true that plaintiff No.1 purchased the entire property that fell t the share of Manohara Bai. He purchased the property in 1965. The property includes the suit schedule property. The 1 st plaintiff obtained mutation of the property and he cultivated and enjoyed the property.” 20. From the above pleadings and evidence, firstly there is admission about the title of plaintiff No.1, not only is there admission of the title of plaintiff No.1, but defendant No.1 is also claiming title from the same plaintiff No.1 under an unregistered sale deed. According to defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 enjoyed the property up to the year 1980 and then sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.1. The said unregistered sale deed was allegedly executed in the presence of Komuraiah Gopal, Sailu and Lachaiah. However, none are examined to prove the factum of execution of said unregistered sale deed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. To conclude, there is failure to produce the unregistered sale coupled with failure to examine the witnesses to the sale deed. 21. However, none are examined to prove the factum of execution of said unregistered sale deed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. To conclude, there is failure to produce the unregistered sale coupled with failure to examine the witnesses to the sale deed. 21. When the document itself is lost and when the title deed is not produced, the only option available to ascertain title is circumstantial evidence. When such circumstantial evidence is examined, it is seen that plaintiff No.1 produced pahanies from the years 1996-97 to 2007-08 marked under Exs.A-1 to A-9. These exhibits have to be considered against the backdrop of alleged sale of suit schedule property by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. When the sale took place in the year 1980, the question arises as what prevented defendant No.1 from getting the same mutated in his favour up to the year 1996-97 i.e., after 16 years. As per Section 4 of the ROR Act, when there is transfer of property, the mutation has to be effected in 90 days time frame. Defendant No.1, who worked as Sarpanch should have knowledge about this fact, but still continued to resign himself to inaction for nearly 16 long years after alleged purchase. The absence of the unregistered sale deed coupled with inaction for 16 long years in mutation further compounds the case of defendant No.1. 22. It is the case of defendant No.1 that there was alleged enquiry in file No.B/635/2008, initially, on account of the application made by plaintiff No.1 against defendant No.1 for mutation of suit schedule property in his name without notice to plaintiff No.1. On one hand, it is alleged that enquiry was kept in cold storage and on the other hand it is alleged by defendant No.1 that when enquiry was conducted at the time of acquisition of land, he was found to be absolute owner and possessor and therefore, compensation was paid to him. Such being the case, the enquiry report which is in favour of defendant No.1 ought to have been produced by defendant No.1, in order to prove the sale of the suit schedule property in his favour. 23. Such being the case, the enquiry report which is in favour of defendant No.1 ought to have been produced by defendant No.1, in order to prove the sale of the suit schedule property in his favour. 23. In addition to the aforementioned anomalies, there is another instance which raises doubt about the genuineness of the version presented by defendant No.1 i.e., when plaintiffs sought to get information about the proceedings in file No.B/2902/2005 under Exs.A-19 and A-20, the revenue authorities have issued reply stating that there is no such record available. In the circumstances, the documents produced by defendant No.1 before the revenue authorities become suspect giving rise to a genuine doubt about defendant No.1 managing revenue authorities to get mutation of the suit schedule property in his name. Further, the record about enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities before awarding compensation is not produced. Therefore, the learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff No.1 was original owner and therefore, decreed the suit followed by consequential relief of recovery of possession and the refund of compensation amount awarded. 24. The appreciation of facts as well as the contents of the documents by the trial Court are logical and based on sound reasoning. Once title of plaintiff No.1 is admitted, during the year 1965 upto 1980, the person claiming title from the year 1980 has the burden to prove the same. In the instant case, plaintiffs are claiming to be the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property denying the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Once defendant No.1 admitted the title of plaintiff No.1, the burden of proving the purchase of the suit schedule property is on defendants. Further, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property from the year 1980, but are unable to produce any documents to prove the possession up to the year 2005-06. Whereas, the plaintiffs are claiming to be absolute owners and possessors and in that regard have produced pahanies from the year 1996- 97 to 2007-08 till the said date, when wrong entries were made in the revenue record in favour of defendant No.1 and ever since, the plaintiffs made complaints to the revenue authorities. 25. Whereas, the plaintiffs are claiming to be absolute owners and possessors and in that regard have produced pahanies from the year 1996- 97 to 2007-08 till the said date, when wrong entries were made in the revenue record in favour of defendant No.1 and ever since, the plaintiffs made complaints to the revenue authorities. 25. Another instance of plaintiffs approaching revenue authorities, objecting the mutation of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 is seen from exhibit under Ex.B-18. This factual situation coupled with documentary evidence shows that when the suit schedule property is mutated in favour of defendant No.1, there is objection by plaintiff No.1. However, taking advantage of plaintiff No.1’s absence in the village, defendant No.1 continued with false entry of his name in the revenue records and also managed to draw the compensation which is claimed by plaintiff No.1. When attempts of the plaintiffs to rectify the entries by approaching the revenue authorities i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 5 failed, the present suit for declaration of title along with consequential relief is filed. The documentary evidence in favour of plaintiffs is admitted by defendant No.1, whereas there is no foundation for the alleged title of defendant Nos.1 and 2 under the exhibits marked under B series before the trial Court. In the absence of credible evidence, the only inference to be drawn is the documents produced in B series are on the basis of fabricated documents as plaintiff No.1 is denying execution of unregistered simple sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. 26. Lastly, this Court does not see any infirmity in plaintiffs examining GPA holder as P.W.1 as long as permission was taken from the Court for such examination as witness. There is no bar on examining the GPA holder as witness as long as he has knowledge about the facts of the case. Even otherwise, though GPA holder of the plaintiffs expressed lack of knowledge about the suit schedule property and about the facts of the case, the same does not become fatal as P.W.2, who is son of plaintiff No.1, was examined as witness. 27. Even otherwise, though GPA holder of the plaintiffs expressed lack of knowledge about the suit schedule property and about the facts of the case, the same does not become fatal as P.W.2, who is son of plaintiff No.1, was examined as witness. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is seen that plaintiffs have convincing evidence in their favour not only in the form of Exs.A-1 to A-20, the same is strengthened on the basis of admissions of D.W.1 himself about plaintiff No.1 acquiring the title and possession from his sister-in-law Manohara Bai. As is the existing law of the land, admitted facts need not be proven. The admission of defendant No.1 proves the title of plaintiff No.1 and consequently, plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 as his legal representatives. Once plaintiffs’ burden is discharged the onus shifts to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to prove their title. Defendant No.1 failed to prove his title by not producing the unregistered sale deed and failed to produce any witness to the said document. Further, there is failure to produce application and documents pertaining to 13-B and 13-C certificates, which were issued in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that to without notice to plaintiff No.1. In the said circumstances, the documents exhibited under B series lose their evidentiary value and the plaintiffs will succeed. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings given by the learned trial Court. The present appeal lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. Contempt Case No.1489 of 2019 is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2/appellants alleging that during the operation of status quo order granted by this Court in the present appeal three bore wells have been dug out of which there is permission for only one bore well. In this regard, respondent Nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 herein/plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 filed their respect counters denying the allegations made in the contempt petition . 29. Except making allegations that bore wells were dug during operation of status quo granted by this Court and there is violation of such order, no evidence is produced before this Court to prove the contempt. In view of the same, this Court finds no merits in the present Contempt Case and the same is liable to be closed. 30. 29. Except making allegations that bore wells were dug during operation of status quo granted by this Court and there is violation of such order, no evidence is produced before this Court to prove the contempt. In view of the same, this Court finds no merits in the present Contempt Case and the same is liable to be closed. 30. In the result, the appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2019 is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court. Further, the Contempt Case No.1489 of 2019 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.