IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE first defendant is the appellant herein. The suit was originally filed for

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs

possession over the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, the plaint was

amended seeking the relief of declaration of title. The plaintiff is the father-in-law as

well as the sisters husband of the first defendant. The second defendant is the elder

brother of the first defendant and the third defendant is the mother of defendants 1

and 2. The fourth defendant is another sister of the first defendant. The suit

property consists of two items of wet land measuring Ac. 1. 23 cents and Ac. 1. 74

cents, and a house constructed on seven Ankanams of site together with a well and

a pump set.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case is that he purchased the unit property and some other

properties from the second defendant who executed Ex. A-1 sale deed on his behalf

and on behalf of the first defendant as karta of the joint family to meet the

expenditure for digging a well and for family necessity, that the first defendant did

not take any steps to get the sale set aside after attaining majority; that the plaintiff

took possession of the properties purchased by him and has been in possession and

enjoyment of the same since then, that on 1-3-1977, the second defendant

trespassed into item No. 1 of the plaint schedule and objected for the ploughing;

that he also trespassed into the house and tried to break open the locks and that

the defendants have been obstructing the plaintiff from raising sugar cane crop in

the suit land. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the sale deed dt. 11-6-1953, which

is marked as Ex. A-52, under which the first defendant purchased some property

from one Gaddi Agasthya Reddy, the northern boundary is described as that of the

plaintiff and as such, the defendants are estopped from questioning the title of the

plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE common defence set up by all the defendants is that the sale deed ex. A-1

dated 22-3-1948 is nominal and not intended to be acted upon; that in fact the said

said deed was not acted upon; that the plaintiff never took possession under the

sale sale deed and was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties;

that as the second defendant was innocent, the third defendant got the sale deed

executed by the second defendant in order to prevent the second defendant from

wasting away the properties; that defendants 1 to 3 continued to be in possession

and that there was no necessity for the family to alienate the suit properties.

Subsequently, the first defendant filed an additional written statement pleading that

after the estate of Punganur Zamindar was taken over by the Government, the

Survey and Settlement authorities granted a patta in favour of the first defendant

and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 4 ) THE first defendant explained that when he purchased some properties

adjoining the suit land, he did not go to the Sub-Registrars Office and that he is not

aware that the northern boundary in the said sale deed was shown as that of the

plaintiffs land. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff came from Mysore State one

year prior to the suit and the first defendant permitted him to reside in a portion of

the southern side of the farm house because the plaintiff is his father-in-law.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed a re-joinder pleading that the first defendant who is a legal

practitioner at Punganur might have played fraud against the village officers and

Government officials in securing a rough patta which was brought to light only at

the time of filing the additional written statement; that the survey authorities have

no right to issue any rough patta and that even if the patta is issued, it is not valid

and operative and does not bind the plaintiff. During the course of trial, the third

defendant filed a separate written statement stating that defendants 1 and 2. have

nothing to do with the suit properties; that her husband was the absolute owner of

the suit properties which are his self-acquired properties and that she has become

the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu

Succession Act.

( 6 ) THE learned Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle on a consideration of the

oral and documentary evidence adduced before him came to the conclusion that Ex.

A-1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not a nominal document but was executed

for the family necessity of the defendants and as such is binding on the first

defendant, that the plaintiff made improvements to the plaint schedule properties;

that there is cause of action for filing the suit, that the first defendant did not take

any steps to set aside Ex. A-1 sale deed which is a voidable document within three

years after his attaining majority and as such the plaintiff is entitled for declaration

of his title and that the plaintiff has title to and possession of the plaint schedule

properties. Basing on those findings, the learned District Munsif has granted a

decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision, the first defendant preferred A. S. No. 13 of

1981 on the file of the Sub-court, Madanapalle. It was later on transferred to the

court of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and the learned additional District

Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the trial court.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision of the. learned Additional District Judge,

madanapalle, the first defendant has preferred the above second appeal. The

plaintiff has filed cross-objections for costs.

( 9 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant argued that the

entire property being alienated for the purpose of digging a well is unbelievable, thai

Ex. A-1 sale deed reads as if it was executed by the first defendant as the guardian;

that the name of the first defendant was struck-off and only the second defendants

name remains in the document; that there can be no basis for the assertion that the

second defendant has executed ex. A-1 as the karta of the joint family, that Sec. 14

of the Inams Abolition Act operates as a bar for the Civil Court exercising jurisdiction

in the suit; that the considerations which prevailed with the trial court viz. , (1) the

relationship, (2) the first defendant purchasing property from D. W. 2 under the

original of ex. A-52 describing the northern boundary of one of the items as that of

the plaintiff, (3) the failure of the first defendant to file a suit after becoming major

and (4) the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of p. W. 2s father

are not sufficient to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff; that at any rate, the

lower appellate court did not deal with any of the documents filed by the parties but

only stated that Exs. A-1 and A-52 are sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff and that

inasmuch as the lower appellate court has not applied its mind to all the aspects of

the case, this is a fit case for remand. The learned Advocate General further argued

that even the trial court has not properly considered the oral and documentary

evidence and did not advert itself to the important aspects of the case; that both the

courts did not consider the effect of pattas granted by the authorities and that in the

light of the most unsatisfactory manner of disposal of the first appeal, the matter

should be remitted back to the lower appellate court for fresh disposal.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the

Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title; that the first defendant,

who is a practising advocate, did. not challenge Ex. A-1 sale deed after he became a

major in 1951, that the first defendant himself purchased the adjoining property

under Ex. A-52; that there is ample evidence to show that both the vendor and the

vendee have together drafted that sale deed; that the description of the northern

boundary therein as the plaintiffs and is very significant to disprove the first

defendants case land that Exs. A-5 and A-76 prove that Ex. A-1 was acted upon. He

further argued that the lower appellate court having discussed the important aspects

of the case and having given a finding agreeing with the trial court, has expressed a

general agreement with the decision of the trial court which is permissible and that

there is no need for any remand.

( 11 ) FIRST, I shall deal with the objection of the learned Advocate General that the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide title is barred. The latest decision of the

Supreme Court on this point is State of T. N. vs. Rama Linga. The Supreme Court

has categorically held that the Civil Courts jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real

nature of the land is not ousted under Section 64-C of the Tamilnadu Estates

(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Act 26/48) (hereinafter referred to as

the) by reason of the Settlement officers decision to grant or refuse to grant a

patta under Section 11 read with the proviso to Section 3 (d) of the. Though the

decision before the supreme Court arose under the Tamilnadu Act, the learned

counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of the Estates (Abolition

and conversion into Ryotwari) Act applicable to Andhra Pradesh are in pari-materia

to the Tamilnadu Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of t. N. vs. Rama

Linga is followed by the decision of my learned brother jagannadha Rao, ]. , in

Rama Krishna Reddy vs. Balaiah which is a case arising under the Andhra Pradesh

Act. The learned Judge held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the

questions arising under Section 11 of thenotwithstanding any earlier decision of

the settlement authority as to the persons entitled to the grant of patta under

Section 11 of the. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of T. N. vs. Rama

Linga is also followed by the decision of a Division Bench of our High Court in K. V.

Krishnaiah vs. M. Sidda Reddy, wherein it is held that the order under Section 11 of

the is not final and can be questioned in a Civil Court and that the jurisdiction of

the Civil Court is not impliedly barred. In view of the decision of the Supreme court

in case (1 supra) as well as the decisions of our High Court in cases (2) and (3)

supra, it clearly follows that the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted whenever

the Settlement Officer issues a Ryotwari patta under Section 11 of theand that

the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title.

( 12 ) SO far as item No. 1 of the plaint schedule is concerned, no patta has been

filed into the court. The first defendant as D. W. I has admitted in his evidence that

the patta given for item No. 1 of the plaint schedule is misplaced and is not traced.

He filed Exs. B-5 and B-6 in support of his title for item no. 2 of the plaint schedule

properties. Ex. B-5 is the rough patta. Ex. B-6 is the notice issued to the first

defendant under Section 9 (2) of the Survey and boundaries Act calling upon the

first defendant to submit his objections if any, to the Survey Officer in-charge. As

held by a Division Bench of our high Court in Elumalai Chetty vs. Rathnavelu Chetty

the rough patta is only a notice issued to the owner to prefer objections with regard

to the details given therein and it does not decide title to the holding. It is neither a

document of title nor evidence of title. The Division Bench further held that the issue

of rough patta is one of the steps taken in the process of carrying out re-settlement

operations in respect of a ryotwari area and it has no bearing at all on the question

of title to the holding itself. Relying upon that decision, it follows that the first

defendant cannot establish his title merely by relying upon Ex. B-5 rough patta and

Ex. B-6 notice issued under the Survey and Boundaries Act.

( 13 ) THE execution of Ex. A-1 is not denied by the defendants in their written

statement. Their contention, as set forth in the written statement filed by the first

defendant which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4, is that it is a nominal document

and was never intended to be acted upon. A careful scrutiny of Ex. A-1 shows that

originally both the first defendant and the second defendant have signed the

document. Subsequently, having realised that the first defendant was only a minor

at that time and was not capable of executing the document, the signature of the

first defendant was struck off and the second defendant signed Ex. A-1 as the

guardian of the minor first defendant. Admittedly, by the date of execution of Ex. A-

1, the father of defendants 1 and 2 was not alive and as such, the execution of the

document by the second defendant as the guardian of the minor first defendant

must be deemed to be in the capacity of the Manager of the Hindu Joint Family, in

respect of co-parcenary property. There is neither plea nor proof that the suit

property is the self acquired property of defendants 1 and 2. The recitals in Ex. A-1

are that the suit property was disposed of to meet the expenses for digging a well

and for the family necessity of the defendants. Ex. A-77 which is the certified copy

of Ex. A-1 sale deed clearly points out that the corrections found in Ex. A-1 were

carried, out into to at the time of the execution of the document and prior to its

registration. So no suspicious circumstances are attached to the execution of Ex. A-1

sale deed in view of the corrections found therein.

( 14 ) THE first defendant has not taken any steps to avoid Ex. A-1 sale deed within

three years of his attaining majority. Excepting the interested testimony of the first

defendant, there is no other evidence to show that Ex. A-1 is a nominal document.

P. W. 2 deposed that his father Venkatappa acted as the power of attorney agent of

P. W. I under the original of Ex. A-5; that as the said power of attorney agent, his

father, has deepened the well in item No. 1 of the plaint schedule and built a stone

revetment; that his father has also built a shed on five ankanams of land for. shelter

in 1951-52 spending about rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- advanced by P. W. 1; that his

father has also filed o. S. No. 249 of 1959 against one Hanumantha Reddy and

Agasthya Reddy as the power of attorney agent of P. W. I; that defendants 1 and 2

were never in possession of the suit lands and the power of attorney was got

cancelled. The learned Advocate General submitted that Ex. A-5 does not pertain to

the suit lands. But a perusal of Ex. A-76 which is the original power of attorney

executed by the plaintiff in favour of P. W. 2s father shows that it is in respect of

Pymash No. 33 measuring Ac. 0. 22 guntas which is one of the items purchased by

the plaintiff under Ex. A-1. It cannot, therefore, be said that ex. A-76 power of

attorney does not relate to the suit lands at all. The evidence of P. W. 2 coupled

with Ex. A-5 and A-76 can be relied upon to show that P. W. 2s father acted as the

power of attorney agent of P. W. I, deepened the well in item No. 1 of the plaint

schedule and also built a shed on five ankanams of land for shelter in 1951-52. P.

W. 2s evidence further shows that his father has filed O. S. No. 249 of 1959 against

Hanumantha Reddy and agasthya Reddy as the power of attorney agent of P. W. 1.

Hanumantha reddy, who is examined as P. W. 3, has testified to the fact that a suit

was filed against him by P. W. 2s father on behalf of P. W. 1, and that P. W. 1 was

in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands for over thirty years.

( 15 ) AS against the above evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, the first defendant as D.

W. 1 tried to depose that as the wife of the second defendant deserted him, the

third defendant suspected that she might claim maintenance and therefore, to avoid

the maintenance claim a nominal document was executed in favour of P. W. 1 in Ex.

A-1. But this statement of D. W. 1 is not supported by a plea to that effect in the

written statement of the first defendant. The statement of D. W. 1 that he came to

know of Ex. A-1 only after the suit is filed cannot be accepted because the

document contains his signature.

( 16 ) ANOTHER piece of evidence which is relied upon by the plaintiff in proof of his

title is the description of the northern boundary in Ex. A-52 as the land of the

plaintiff. D. W. 1 tried to get over the recital of boundaries in ex. A-52 by stating

that he was not present at the time of execution of the original of Ex. A-52. But that

statement is contradicted by D. W. 2 who categorically stated that himself, D. W. 1,

Munuswamy and some others were present when the original of Ex. A-52 was

written and that all of them have given instructions for preparing Ex. A-52. It is

elicited from him in the cross- examination that he did not execute any rectification

deed even after he came to know of the description of the boundaries in Ex. A-52.

The description of the boundaries in Ex. A-52, to which D. W. 1 is a party, is

admissible in evidence to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 that the northern

boundary for the land covered by Ex. A-52 was described as the land of the plaintiff.

( 17 ) THE learned Advocate General argued that the lower appellate court has

disposed of the appeal only in one paragraph which is a most unsatisfactory manner

of disposing of a first appeal; that the lower appellate court did not consider the

question of adverse possession at all; that the crucial period for determining adverse

possession is from 1963 of 1977, during which period the first defendant alone was

dealing with the property for a continuous period of twenty four years; that the

finding of the trial court about adverse possession is totally halting; that the trial

court did not advert itself to the important question as to whether the second

defendant is competent to act as the guardian of the first defendant when his

mother was admittedly alive and that the trial court did not determine who the heirs

of the deceased father of defendants 1 and 2 are who died before 1948. There is

absolutely no evidence on record to show that the suit property constituted the self

acquired property of the father of defendants 1 and 2. That being the case, when

defendants 1 and 2 were alive by the time of their fathers death, the second

defendant who is the elder son of the family naturally becomes the kartha of the

joint family. Though the third defendant filed a separate written statement, she did

not examine herself nor did she adduce any evidence, either documentary or oral, to

prove that the father of defendants 1 and 2 has acquired the suit property from out

of his own earnings and that as such it constitutes his separate property. The

question of the trial court determining who the heirs are for the deceased father of

defendants 1 and 2 does not arise. Therefore, it may be presumed that the second

defendant has executed Ex. A-1 in his capacity as the Manager of the Hindu Joint

Family.

( 18 ) AS regards the question of adverse possession, it is in evidence that the

plaintiff got some repairs effected and improvements made to the suit land

subsequent to Ex. A-1. The plaintiff was in Government service and was working in

Karnataka State. Unless he had title in the suit property, it is unbelievable that he

should have taken pains to effect repairs or make improvements to the suit

property. P. W. 2 has testified to the fact that his father, as the power of attorney

agent of the plaintiff has depened the well, built the stone revetment and also five

ankanams of shed for shelter with the funds provided by the plaintiff. Exs. A-66 and

A-67 show that the asbestos sheets were purchased by the plaintiff which were used

for repairing the house in item No. 1 of the plaint schedule. The plaintiff has also

produced a certificate issued by the Karnataka State Electricity Board to show that

the electric motor and pump set fixed to his well at Nangili has been disconnected

and that the said electric motor and pump set were installed to the well situated in

the suit property. The first defendant did not adduce any independent evidence to

establish that either he has effected any repairs to the suit well with his own funds

or that he made constructions by himself.

( 19 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the burden of proving adverse possession is on the person

setting up that plea. The first defendant did not produce any record of cultivation

showing that he has been cultivating the suit lands for over the statutory period. As

rightly held by the trial court, the stray entries in the village records for one or two

years do not confer title and payment of tax is not an indication of possession and

tide. From the mere fact that the electricity connection was taken in the name of the

first defendant, it cannot be presumed that he was in exclusive possession and

enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff is no other than the brother-in-law and

the father-in-law of the first defendant. Being the person who was readily available

at the suit property, it is quite probable that the first defendant might have applied

for the electricity connection to the pump set in the suit property. That by itself does

not amount to proof of possession of the suit property. The evidence placed on

record is not sufficient to establish that the first defendant has perfected his title by

adverse possession.

( 20 ) THE learned Advocate General relying upon the decision in Biharilal vs. Murti

Sri Radha Krishnaji Thakurbari argued that where the lower appellate court simply

agreed with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court observing that the trial

court had elaborately discussed the evidence and did not consider the evidence on

record and did not record its reasons in support of the finding, the finding would not

be binding in the Second Appeal. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of

the Supreme Court in Dilbagrail punjabi vs. Sharad Chandra which lays down that

the court is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence on record and if it

refused to consider the important evidence having a direct bearing on the disputed

issue and the error which arises is of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial

question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the finding. Basing on

the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilabagrai Punjabi vs. Sharad Chandra, the

learned Advocate General argued that inasmuch as the appellate court has disposed

of the appeal in a perfunctory manner without discussing the entire evidence placed

on record, this is a fit case where the decree of the lower appellate court should be

set aside and the case remitted to the appellate court for fresh disposal.

( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the decision of the

Supreme Court in Girija Nandini vs. Bijendra Narain argued that when the appellate

court agrees with the view of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate the

effect of evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court and the

expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would

ordinarily be sufficient. In this case, no doubt, the appellate Judge should have

discussed the evidence in greater detail. But the judgment shows that he has

considered the crucial aspects of the case, viz. , whether Ex. A-1 is a nominal

document and whether it is a document null and void. In arriving at that decisions,

he has relied upon the description of the northern boundary in Ex. A-52. He has also

mentioned that the corrections and the additional writing in Ex. A-1 were written

prior to its registration as evidenced by Ex. A-77 and that Ex. A-76 power of

attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of P. W. 2s father shows that the

plaintiff has authorised the father of P. W. 2 to manage the suit properties and the

other properties on his behalf. The lower appellate court has also held that the civil

court has jurisdiction and observed that the trial court has exhaustively discussed

the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and referred to the documents

filed by both the parties in detail and that he sees no reason to interfere with the

findings of the trial court. As held by the supreme Court in Girija Nandini vs. Bijendra

Narain when the appellate court agrees with the view of the trial court on evidence,

it need not restate the reasons given by the trial court and the expression of general

agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice. It

cannot, therefore, be said that the lower appellate court has not considered all the

aspects of the case and as such the case warrants a remand. The judgment of the

learned appellate Judge shows that he is in general agreement with the findings of

the trial court which has exhaustively discussed the evidence on behalf of both the

parties and referred to the documents filed by both the parties in detail. Even

otherwise, there is no sufficient material to warrant the necessity of remanding the

case to the lower appellate court for fresh disposal on the question of adverse

possession. The trial court has rightly observed that the stray entries in the village

records do not confer title to the first defendant. The first defendant did not produce

any record of cultivation to show that he has been cultivating the suit lands for over

the statutory period. Exs. B-11 to B-20 are for the period from December, 1971 to

1977. Exs. B-21 to B-30 are also for the period subsequent to 1971. There is no

satisfactory material to show that the first defendant has perfected his title to the

suit property by adverse possession. As I discussed already, the mere fact that the

first defendant has applied for and obtained electric connection in his name for the

pump set in the suit property does not lead to the conclusion that he was in adverse

possession of the suit property.

( 22 ) FOLLOWING the decision of the Supreme Court in Girija Nandini vs. Bijendra

Narain (7 supra), I hold that there is no necessity for remanding the case to the

lower appellate court for fresh disposal.

( 23 ) BOTH the courts below have concurrently found that Ex. A-1 is not a nominal

document not intended to be acted upon and that it is binding on the first

defendant. Consequently, the decree for declaration and injunction granted in favour

of the plaintiff is perfectly correct and does not call for any interference.

( 24 ) THE Second Appeal and cross-objections are accordingly dismissed, but

without costs.