1. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 15-03-2010 in A.S.No. 97 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in reversing the decree and judgment 25-08-2009 in O.S.No. 140 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondent is plaintiff before the trial Court. During the pendency of second appeal, the respondent is declared as major by discharging her next friend and guardian i.e. her mother vide order dated 24-10-2025 in I.A.No. 1 of 2024.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 140 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for declaration of her title over plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property and for costs.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No. 97 of 2009 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 15-03-2010 in A.S.No. 97 of 2009, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal suit by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

6. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 140 of 2007, is as follows:

                  The plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of minor plaintiff under sale deed dated 30-07-2003. Since the date of purchase, the schedule property is being managed by the plaintiff's next friend and guardian i.e. her mother. The plaintiff applied to defendant No. 2 on 10-02-2007 for permission to convert the land into non-agricultural land with an intention to construct Rural Farmer's Warehouses to stock agricultural produce. The vendors of the plaintiff purchased the schedule property on 23-11-1998 from the rightful owners under registered sale deed. The vendors got the property by way of title deed as well as by registered documents of the year 1983 from the earlier owners. It is the private property of the plaintiff's vendors under registered document dated 23-11-1998 and their predecessors in title from times immemorial. Accordingly, mutation is effected in revenue records and the names of original owners are entered in revenue records. Subsequent to the purchase of the plaintiff, her name is mutated in 10 (1) account and also in adangals. Pattadar passbook is issued in the name of the plaintiff. At no point of time, the Government claimed it as its property and it was never in possession of the Government. The defendants are not converting plaint schedule land into non-agricultural land and kept the application of the plaintiff dated 10-02-2007 pending. The Government has not established its title by any suit or otherwise. The Government has no title or possession at any time within the statutory period. The defendants are estoppsed from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff or denying her title.

7. Case of the defendant as seen from their written statement is as follows:

                  As per Re-settlement Register, an extent of Ac. 6.56 cents is situated in survey No. 46/1 of Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal. The classification of the land is Government Poramboke i.e. K.C. Canal B-Class Poramboke. Thereafter, the land was transferred in the name of Stantan Dora who left the village more than 60 years back and his whereabouts are not known. One Kumari Rebakamma, D/o Devasahayam, and D.Thirupalu, S/o Marenna, have occupied the land and were cultivating it. They have applied to Tahsildar, Kurnool, along with Sub-Division fee with a request to regularize the land as per their enjoyment and to incorporate their names in revenue records. Accordingly, the then Tahsildar issued proceedings vide his letter R.C.B.A4/1070/1983 dated 14-06-1983 for incorporation of changes in village accounts. The present purchaser is not an agriculturist. Her father is an industrialist.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and an additional issue for trial:

                  Issues:

                  "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property?

                  (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential injunction against the defendants?

                  (3) To what relief?

                  Additional Issue:

                  "(1) Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC?"

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

10. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No. 97 of 2009 on the file of the first appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration:

                  "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property?

                  (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential injunction against the defendants?

                  (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.?

                  (4) Whether there is no cause of action?

                  (5) To what relief?"

11. The first appellate Court, after hearing arguments, answered the points, as above, in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and allowed the appeal suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants in O.S.No. 140 of 2007 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

12. The composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh admitted the second appeal on 04-12-2017, wherein the following substantial questions of law have been framed at the time of admission:

                  "(a) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the predecessors of the plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession against the Government is factually and legally correct?

                  (b) Whether the lower appellate Court was legally correct in giving a finding that the predecessors of the plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession when the plaintiff has not set up title by adverse possession either on himself or his predecessors?

                  (c) To what relief?"

13. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the appellants-defendants and Sri A.Ravinder, learned senior counsel, representing Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of C.P.C., the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.

15. In Bhagwan Sharma Vs. Bani Ghosh(AIR 1993 SC 398), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  "The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature."

16. In Kondira Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar(AIR 1999 SC 471), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  "The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon admissible evidence or arrived at without evidence."

17. The material available on record goes to show that the vendors of the plaintiff by name B.Thimmaiah and P.B.Khanna purchased plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 23-11-1998 from one D.Thirupalu and Rebakamma and their title is also mentioned in the sale deed that the said Thirupalu and Rebekamma purchased the same in the year 1983 under a registered sale deed. The respondent-plaintiff purchased plaint schedule property from B.Thimmaiah and P.B.Khanna, who are having title over plaint schedule property, under Ex.A3 registered sale deed dated 23-11-1998. Soon after purchase of plaint schedule property under registered sale deed, the name of the plaintiff is mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbook is also issued in favour of the plaintiff by revenue authorities and the name of the plaintiff is also mutated in revenue records.

18. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the first appellate Court in its judgment held that the Government lost its possession from 28-11-1910 and plaint schedule land is a private patta land and it is not an assigned land. The first appellate Court further held that plaint schedule property is transferable with absolute rights and it does not mean within the definition of assigned lands and by giving reasons, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property. Aggrieved against the said decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed in the year 2012.

19. Sri A.Ravinder, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, would submit that subsequent to passing of decree and judgment by the first appellate Court and during pendency of the second appeal, a District Level Committee has been constituted comprising the District Collector, Kurnool, as Chairman and the Joint Collector, Kurnool, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, and the Tahsildar, Kurnool, as members of the said committee i.e. the appellants herein and that the committee headed by the District Collector, Kurnool, issued proceedings in R.Dis.E2(D.L.)/1399/2018 dated 07-03-2019 for regularization of land in plaint schedule in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. A copy of the proceedings issued by the District Collector, Kurnool, dated 07-03-2019 is also filed and the same is placed on record by serving notice to learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. Though the matter has been adjourned from time to time, no objections are filed by the appellants against the said proceedings issued by the District Collector, Kurnool.

20. As seen from the copy of the proceedings issued by the District Collector & Chairman of the District Level Committee, Kurnool, as stated supra, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have enacted the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation of Re-settlement Register) Act, 2017, and issued the rules vide G.O.Ms.No. 210, Revenue (ASSGN.I) Department, dated 14-06-2017, wherein it is narrated that the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kurnool, has issued no objection in respect of the land in an extent of Ac. 6.86 cents situated in survey No. 46/1 and the District Collector, Kurnool, directed the Tahsildar, Kurnool, to update the re-settlement register and other revenue records including digitally maintained records after completion of sub-division for the claimed survey numbers 46/1A (Ac. 1.43 cents) and 46/1B (Ac. 4.0 cents) in the name of the respondent-plaintiff within one month under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation of Re-settlement Register) Act, 2017.

21. Learned senior counsel would submit that in view of the proceedings issued by the District Collector and Chairman of the District Level Committee, Kurnool, which includes the appellants herein as members, as noticed supra, the Tahsildar, Kurnool, updated the re- settlement register and passbooks are also issued in the name of the respondent-plaintiff and therefore, the cause in the second appeal does not survive and the same has become infructuous. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has not at all disputed the proceedings issued by the District Collector and Chairman of the District Level Committee, Kurnool, as stated supra.

22. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed.

23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. Each party do bear their own costs.