The learned first appellate Court on reassessment of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and also held that the plaintiffs failed to locate 28 ½ guntas of land within the specified boundaries. Admittedly, defendant No.2 purchased Ac.1.25 ½ guntas of land from the first plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and this fact is borne out from Ex.B.6 statement of the first plaintiff recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer during the course of regularization proceedings. The purchase made by the second defendant of an extent of Ac.1.25 ½ guntas was under simple sale deed and the said transaction was subsequently regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in the name of the defendant No.2. Though, the plaintiffs also adduced documentary evidence in proof of their possession and enjoyment of certain land under Survey No.234, the crucial question which was considered by both the Courts below was that they failed to establish the identity of the schedule mentioned land. The second defendant would be able to establish by the requisite documentary evidence, namely Ex.A.4, A.8 and A.9 pahanies to the effect that the land of an extent of A.1.25 ½ guntas held by him is denoted by revenue authorities after sub-division by bit Nos. 6 and 8. Whereas the land of 28 ½ guntas held by the plaintiff No.1 is denoted as bit No.5.
