record of rights and provides remedy wherever his title to such right is denied or infringed. Section 8(2) in no manner deals with acquisition of title by purchase of land through deeds on plain paper. But, here, the petitioner is claiming a right under the „Will‟ which falls within the meaning of acquisition of property under Section 4 of the Act, whereas, the petitioner is claiming right along with her two daughters exclusively in the property. In such case, more particularly, when the right of one party is denied by other party, who is aggrieved by amendment to the entries in the revenue record, shall file a suit for declaration. But, Section 8(2) is not applicable to the present facts of the case, since, no suit is filed for declaration, aggrieved by an order of mutation of the names of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 by Respondent No.4, but it is a suit for partition filed by one of the daughter of the petitioner, pending for trial on the file of O.S.No.304 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. The remedy under Section 8(2) is available to person aggrieved by the amendment of entries in the revenue records. Therefore, there is absolutely no bar to exercise power by Respondent No.4/Tahsildar under Section 4 to mutate the names of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 based on the „Will‟. Mere pendency of a suit for partition in O.S.No.304 of 2017 is not sufficient to deline exercise of power by Respondent No.4/Tahsildar. Initially Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were not parties to the suit, but, Respondent No.5 herself came on record as party by filing I.A.No.1058 of 2017 and thus, by the date of mutation of the names and publication of notice in Form VIII dated 02.11.2017, the suit against Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 is deemed to be not pending, as Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were not impleaded as parties.
