( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 44 of 1985 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, krishna at Machilipatnam confirming the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 264 of 1975 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, machilipatnam.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from attaching the plaint schedule property, crops raised thereon and for recovery of a sum of rs. 960/- from defendants 1 to 3.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the suit land was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, S. Venkateswara Rao, under a registered sale-deed dated 3-5-1948. He was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land till his death in 1972. After his death, the suit property devolved on the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were serving in military, the 3rd plaintiff being their mother was managing the suit property. The 4th defendant is the wife of sri S. Narayana Rao, the younger brother of sri S. Venkateswara Rao. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the husband of the 4th defendant, who was the village Munsif, won-over the revenue officials and got the suit land fraudulently transferred in favour of his wife i. e. , the 4th defendant in the revenue records. The 4th defendant had fallen due to pay arrears of land revenue. Therefore, in 1974, the standing Crop of the suit land was attached by defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 issued a registered notice demanding defendants 1 to 3 to raise attachment over the property. But they failed to do so. The transfer of suit land from Patta No. 618 belonging to S. Venkateswara Rao to Patta no. 624 belonging to the 4th defendant is illegal and not valid under law. No title was passed to the 4th defendant in the absence of a registered document. Hence, the suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

( 4 ) THE 1st defendant resisted the suit through his written statement contending that the husband of the 4th defendant was appointed as a Village Munsif in 1969. At the time of the said appointment, the 4th defendant gave the said land as security. Subsequently, the husband of the 4th defendant misappropriated a sum of rs. 20,370-75 ps. He was kept under suspension in October, 1973 and on the instructions of the 2nd defendant, the 3rd defendant attached the property which was given as security by the 4th defendant along with another property. The 3rd defendant attached the crop standing in the plaint schedule and another land belonging to ch. Desupathi and the produce was sold for rs. 960/ -. After deducting a sum of Rs. 500. 00 towards watching, thrashing charges etc. , the balance amount of Rs. 460. 00 was adjusted towards the amount due to the government. In pursuance of the family arrangement between S. Venkateswara rao and his brother Narayana Rao, the suit land which was originally purchased by s. Venkateswara Rao, was transferred to the 4th defendant. The transfer of patta was also effected at the request of S. Venkateswara rao. The 4th defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 12 years. Since the plaintiffs or their purchasers in title were not in possession of the suit land within twelve years prior to the date of the suit, they are not entitled to declaration of their title. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 5 ) THE defendants 2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant.

( 6 ) THE 4th defendant remained exparte.

( 7 ) THE trial court framed appropriate issues on the basis of the above pleadings.

( 8 ) THE plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined P. Ws. 1 to 8 and marked exs. A-1 to A-9. The defendants examined d. Ws. 1