( 1 ) THE appellants are the defendants in O. S. No. 82 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, rajam. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court, Rajam, in a. S. No. 10 of 1994 dated 15. 11. 1995, wherein the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit was decreed as prayed for, the appellants preferred this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs:1. declaration of title insofar as it affected by the sham and bogus registered sale deed dated 13-5-1982 executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the other defendants in respect of half portion of the plaint schedule mentioned house and appurtenant site 2. restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule mentioned house in any manner whatsoever by the grant of consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3. as the defendants have erected a thatched shed on the suit site subsequent to the filing of the suit, they may be further ordered to remove the same on their cost and restore the suit site to its original condition by grant of mandatory injunction against them and 4. for costs.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that one adapaka Bapinaidu had two sons by name seetharam, Ramakrishna Naidu and a daughter Ramudamma. Seetharam, predeceased his father leaving one daughter and one son by name Satyanarayana and his daughter was given in marriage to the son of Ramudamma by name Meesala Rama murthy. Bapinaidu died in the year 1940. His another son Ramakrishna Naidu had three sons by name Appalanarasa Naidu, the second son s name was not given in genealogy and Bapinaidu is the third son, who is the plaintiff herein. For proper appreciation of the case, the genealogy of adapaka Bapinaidu is given hereunder: adapaka Bapinaidu (died 1940) seetharam (died prior to 1940) Ramakrishna Naidu Ramudamma daughter s Husband Meesala Ramamurthy satyanarayana (died in 1968) wife Vishnukantamm (Vendor Ex. B1 DW2) Son Krishna (Vendor of Ex. B1) meesala Rama Murthy (married daughter of Seetharam) Meesala Krishnamurthy (DW3) i I Appalanarasanaidu Son Bapinaidu (plaintiff)

( 5 ) AFTER the death of Ramakrishna naidu, there seemed to be a family partition and the suit schedule house fell to the share of his third son Bapinaidu, who is the plaintiff herein. It is their case that ramakrishna Naidu and his sons are in enjoyment of this house since a long time as there was a partition between late Seetharam and Ramakrishna Naidu way back in 1925. While things stood thus, in 1981, the plaintiff seemed to have worked against one Venkata appalanaidu who was elected as Sarpanch of the village and the 1st defendant and the said Venkata Appalanaidu decided to wreak vengeance against him for working against the said Venkata Appalanaidu. They caught hold of Vishnu Kanthamma, wife of late satyanarayana who died in 1968 who is no other than the only son of Seetharam who died prior to 1940 and her son Krishna and obtained a registered sale deed for half of the portion of the house from them claiming that they are the co-owners of the property along with the plaintiff though they had no title or possession over the suit schedule house, hence, he filed the suit for the reliefs already extracted supra.

( 6 ) 1st defendant i. e. , the purchaser of the property, in his written statement stated that there was a family partition long back and in that family partition, the plaintiff and his brother Seetharam and father got one- third share each in the suit schedule house. It is also his case that Bapinaidu conferred his one third share in the property to meesala Rama Murthy who is no other than the son of his daughter who married late seetharam s daughter. While southern portion of the house fell to the share of the plaintiff and the remaining two-third share of the propert