the village. Exhibit A1-adangal extract and exhibit A2-letter of the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned which were much prior to the suit instituted in June 1990 amply establish that the plaintiff had encroached the plaint schedule Government land and was cultivating the same and had also paid the necessary charges to the Government and that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land by June 1988. Though exhibit A1 relates to the 1985-86, it was issued in the year 1987. The suit was filed in the year 1990 originally and was renumbered after the suit was transferred from the file of the Court of District Munsif, at Palasa to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali in the year 1996. So, even in exhibit A1, the copy of the adangal, granted in the year 1987, the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land are recorded. The defendant had filed cist receipts from the year 1996 to 1972 except for the year 1971. No cist receipts of the subsequent years are filed whereas, as already noted, exhibit A1 shows plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule land by the year 1985-86. Exhibit A2 shows the Plaintiff’s possession over the suit land even by June 1988. Though it was contended in the written statement that pattedar passbook was issued to the defendant under ROR Act, no such pattedar passbook was exhibited. The cist receipts filed by the defendants are having over writings. The evidence brought on record does not disclose that the suit schedule land is an inam land. By placing reliance on exhibit A1, the trial Court which had held against the plaintiff, had also accepted that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the year 1985-86. But, the trial court did not give much credence to that document and had held against the plaintiff as the suit was filed in the year 1990 and as the said document does not establish the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as on the date of the suit and as the plaintiff did not produce any other documentary evidence to show his possession as on the date of the suit. Not only exhibit A1, extract of adangal, which establishes the cultivation of the land by the plaintiff during that year but also exhibit A2 which was of the year 1988 and which was issued prior to the filing of the suit sufficiently establish the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land. Exhibit A2 has come to be issued when a dispute was raised by Siriyala Appalanarasimhulu by obstructing the plaintiff’s enjoyment over the suit schedule land. It is not in dispute that in respect of the suit schedule land for some time, a Receiver was appointed and the plaintiff had deposited amounts for a period of three years when the suit was originally pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palasa. In the light of the factual backdrop and the evidence, the Court
