B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment and decree of the learned additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati in a. S. No. 34 of 1980, dated 10-2-1987 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the learned principal District Munsif, Tirupati in O. S. No. 693 of 1978, dated 31-1-1980 are in challenge in this appeal. The appellant herein is the plaintiff. The respondents herein were the defendants. Defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are dead and their legal representatives were brought on record.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit property is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 19/3 with an extent of 1 acre 48 cents situated at Pulicheralpalem village in Chittoor District. The defendants are close relatives. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are the brothers and Defendants No. 8 to 10 are the sisters of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. They resisted the suit plaintiff claims the title to the suit property through defendant No. 6 who had purchased the suit property from one Kalluri Ramaiah under registered Sale Deed, dated 11-5-1967 for certain consideration. She sold the suit property to the plaintiff under the registered Sale Deed, dated 6-10-1971. The plaintiff claimed that he was put into possession of the suit property, raised fencing all around it and enjoyed it but the defendants, who had no manner of right or title over the same, started obstructing his cultivation of the suit property and he had to file the suit for the reliefs stated above.

( 3 ) THE contesting defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They contended that the suit property is their joint family property having been purchased for the family wherein defendant No. 7 managed to get the Sale deed from Kolluri Ramaiah in the name of defendant No. 6 benami without any intention to act upon and that it was not acted upon and it was actually enjoyed as joint family property. There was also a litigation in this regard in O. S. No. 103 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, chittoor filed by Defendant No. 1 against defendant Nos. 2 to 5 Defendant No. 7 for partition and separate possession of their share setting up the suit property as Item no. 5 as the joint family property and claiming share in that also. Therein, defendant No. 7 contested the suit and set up a plea that it was the self acquired property of Defendant No. 6 as stridhana belonging to her and that it was not the joint family property and that his brothers had no share in the same. The suit was decreed on 28-7-1967 and it was challenged before the High Court in Second Appeal no. 294 of 1969. The appeal was dismissed on 19-2-1971. An application in I. A. No. 618 of 1979 was filed and a final decree was passed on 2-3-1972. The contesting defendants have pleaded that defendant no. 6 had the knowledge about it and the plaintiff and defendant No. 7 managed to get the Sale Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff to screen the property from the claim of other members of the family viz. , defendant Nos. 1 to 5, that it is sham and nominal document not intended to be acted upon and it created no title in favour of the plaintiff. These issues were framed :-" (1) Whether the Sale Deed dated 6-10-1971 in favour of the plaintiff is sham and nominal and not binding on the defendants? (2) Whether the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title have title to and possession of the plaint schedule property? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction prayed for? (5) To what relief?"

( 4 ) THE parties went to trial on the issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P. W. I and witnesses as per P. Ws. 2 to 5 respectively. Defendant No. 3 was examine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document