( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants in this letters Patent Appeal which is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3-9-1996 in (Tr) A. S. No. 2132 of 1984 where under the learned single Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1981 in o. S. No. 61 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, and remitted the matter back to the trial Court.

( 2 ) O. S. No. 61 of 1970 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, was filed by the 1st respondent herein (Bandaru Omkarayya) along with two others seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant by name Jangili Bala Kotaiah from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule land. We shall refer the parties as they were arrayed in the trial court in O. S. No. 61 of 1970.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs who are three in number was that they purchased Ac. 4. 84 cents of land situated at Kothapet from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 7-6-1961 (marked as Ex. B-1) and that since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. According to them though the said sale deed contains a condition of reconveyance by the plaintiffs to the defendant on repayment of the consideration of Rs. 2,400. 00 with interest at 9% per annum within three years from the date of sale, the defendant failed to obtain the reconveyance deed within the stipulated period and consequently the sale in favour of the plaintiffs has become final. Out of the land purchased by them subsequently in the year 1962 they sold Ac. 1. 06 cents in favour of one Sajja Tataiah under a registered sale deed which was also attested by the defendant Bala Kotaiah. However, subsequently the defendant demanded reconveyance and obstructed the plaintiffs from cultivating Ac. 1. 64 cents of land, which is part of the land purchased by them and has been in their possession and enjoyment. Hence they filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the said Ac. 1. 64 cents of land. The said suit, originally field as O. S. No. 448 of 1996 in the Court of District munsif, Bapatla was subsequently renumbered as O. S. No. 83 of 1968 on transfer to Sub-Court, Bapatla. Again it was transferred to the Court of Subordinate judge, Chirala and numbered as O. S. No. 61 of 1970.

( 4 ) THE said suit was contested by the defendant. In the written statement it was contended that the document dated 7-6-1961 was executed by the defendant under the impression that it is a mortgage deed. He contended that he did not receive any consideration and that the plaintiffs obtained the said sale deed by playing fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation and therefore the same is not binding on the defendant. He also denied delivery of possession to the plaintiffs under the alleged sale deed. The defendant further denied the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour or Sajja tataiah in respect of Ac. 1. 06 cents and contended that the said sale is not valid and binding on the defendant. Thus the case of the defendant was that the plaintiffs have neither title nor possession in respect of the suit schedule land and therefore they are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.

( 5 ) IT is pertinent to note that the two undivided sons of the sole defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1970 instituted a separate suit being o. S. No. 51 of 1970 on the file of the Sub- court, Chirala (originally O. S. No. 45 of 1968 on the file of Sub-Court, Bapatla) seeking a decree for partition. In the said suit the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 61 of 1970 were made defendants 1 to 3. The sole defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1970 Bala Kotaiah was the 6th defendant. While contending that the 6th defendant and the two plaintiffs constitute hindu Joint Family owning ancestral property and that the plaintiffs together are entitled to an undivided 2/3rd share, the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 51 of 1970 alleged that the 6th defendant was ad