( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1988 passed in A. S. No. 141 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. By the impugned judgment and decree the appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the 1st Addl. Munsif, Kakinada dated 16-8-1982 passed on his file O. S. No. 673 of 1978. In other words, the trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff s suit and the appellate Court has decreed it. Therefore, the defendant has come up to this Court by way of this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants strenuously contended that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is wholly illegal and contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. He further submitted that under sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of property Act once the properties purchased in the name of the appellant-plaintiff to the extent of half share each, the title of the defendant cannot be divested and at the most the plaintiff may claim for the contribution of the sale consideration with interest, but the plaintiff cannot be declared as the owner of the property purchased by the defendant. He relied upon the judgment of. the Supreme Court rendered in vidhyadhar vs. Mankikarao1. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff strenuously supported the impugned judgment and decree.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, I think it appropriate to note a few facts of this case. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he may be declared as the owner and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right in the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant is his own brother and second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The plaintiff purchased 0. 20 cents of vacant site on the basis of registered sale deed dated 13-6-1964 and subsequently constructed manglore tiled house after obtaining the loan of Rs. 7,000/- from the bank. He further submitted that at the time of purchase of the site the sale deed was taken in the joint name of himself and the first defendant and accordingly even in the municipal records the name of the plaintiff and the first defendant are entered as the owners of the entire property. He further alleged that the first defendant promised to contribute half of the cost of the site and half of the cost of the construction, but he has failed to do so and the defendants are residing in a portion of the house as tenants with the plaintiff on a monthly rent of rs. 10/ -. He further averred that defendant executed an agreement on 25-4-1975 vide ex. A-l in favour of the plaintiff admitting the exclusive title and possession of the plaintiff and by the same document the defendant also had agreed to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff giving-up their half share in the property. The plaintiff demanded specific performance of the agreement from the defendants, but the defendants are evading it. In those circumstances, he issued a notice to the defendants vide Ex. A-2 dated 24-4-1978, but the defendant did not reply. Hence, he filed the present suit. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and the same was adopted by the second defendant by filing the separate memo. It is the case of the defendants that the house site was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant jointly vide registered sale deed dated 13-6-1964. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 both passed the consideration and both of them constructed the house sharing the expenses. He further stated that the defendant No. 1 never promised to contribute Rs. 1,800/- and Rs. 2,500/- towards his share in cost of the site and cost of construction respectively and the taxes of the house are being paid jointly. They denied the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are residing in a part o