respondent, in the earlier proceedings before the Civil Court in O.S No.555 of 1997 has filed the written statement i.e, Ex.P.23 and categorically admitted that the suit schedule property is his exclusive property. It is further submitted that the appellate Court failed to consider the MRO proceedings i.e., Ex.P.19 validating the land purchased by the petitioners under Section 5-A of ROR Act. It is also submitted that when some incorrect entries have been made, the MRO passed orders ratifying the entries in the pahani patrika for the year 1993-94 under Ex.P.23. It is also argued that the Tahsildar, Amangal Mandal, issued endorsement showing that the original file is misplaced in MRO office and in the above circumstances the petitioners could not file the original agreement of sale i.e., original of Ex.P.26. When the original document is not available and misplaced in public office, the petitioners cannot be find fault for not filing the original and in the above circumstances the Junior Civil Judge is right, in considering the contents of Ex.P.26. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioners has also referred to the contents of Ex.R.25 and R.26 and submitted that those pahanies pertains to survey No.4 and do not pertains to the suit schedule lands. It is also submitted that Ex.R.23 has no relevance in view of the filing of Ex.R.22. It is also submitted that Ex.P.21 shows that the requisite charges have collected and deficit stamp duty was paid while validating original agreement of sale Ex.P.26. He has also referred to the contents of some of the documents filed by the respondents and submitted that even the documents filed by the respondents shows the possession of the petitioners.
