( 1 ) THE 1st appellant herein named iruvanti Gopinatha Rao was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 12 of 1989 filed by him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, sathupally, Khammam District against the defendants-respondents herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the owner and possessor of Ac. 26-17 guntas of dry land situated in Sy. Nos. 404, 405 and 406 at Rayudupalem village, Hamlet of Ammapalem, erstwhile Sathupalli Taluk of Khammam District, which is the suit schedule property. On-evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the first appellant-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal by filing A. S. No. 39 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional district Judge, Khammam. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first Appellate court, the original plaintiff-1st appellant herein has filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief averments made in the plaint are as follows: As stated earlier, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner and possessor of the land described in the earlier paragraph of my judgment. It was further averred by him that he purchased the suit schedule property from one nandigama Satyanarayana Rao in the year 1968. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same paying necessary land revenue.

( 3 ) IT was further averred by the plaintiff that in the year 1975 he filed a declaration under Section 8 (1) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Act, 1976. The Land Reforms Tribunal declared that the plaintiff was in ceiling limit and therefore the plaintiff did not surrender any land.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2, who are the nearby cultivators of the suit land, are trying to threaten the plaintiff from dispossessing him from the suit schedule land without any legal right. The plaintiff wanted to raise dry crops in the suit schedule land, which was being used as pasture land only. When the plaintiff started agricultural operations in the suit schedule land one week prior to the date of filing of the suit, the defendants tried to trespass into the land openly declaring that they would dispossess the plaintiff therefrom.

( 5 ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants are in collusion with some of the infulential persons of the village, who are politically against the plaintiff. The plaintiff being a man of bent with age and all his sons are in the Government employment and taking advantage of the same, the defendants are continuing illegal acts to occupy the suit lands and therefore the plaintiff had no hopes to resist the defendants from preventing their illegal acts of trespass into the suit land. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.

( 6 ) IT further appears from the pleadings that during the pendency of the suit, injunction order was passed. The defendants 4 and 5 started enquiries about the possession of the suit schedule property to favour the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, they were impleaded as party defendants in the suit. Hence, this suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of title and the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

( 7 ) ON presentation of the suit, summons were issued to the defendants. On appearance, defendants 1 and 5 filed their separate written statements. Defendants 3 and 4 adopted the written statement of 5th defendant The 2nd defendant remained ex pane,

( 8 ) IT was averred by the first defendant that the land in dispute originally belongs to Nandigama Rama Rao. The land was given in the name of the plaintiff who is the father-in-law of the younger brother of Nandigama Rama rao and accordingly land ceiling declarations were filed in order to overcome t