This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.92 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, against the judgment and decree dated 24-8-2005 in A.S.No.75 of 2000, passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, West Godavari, at Rajahmundry. The said appeal was filed by the 41h defendant against the decree and judgment dated 26-4-1996 passed by the trial court.

2. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff, Vulavakayala Subba Rao, died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. In the alternative they prayed for the relief of partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of corresponding shares, to them. The 1st defendant is the son, 2nd defendant is the wife and 3rd defendant is the daughter of Manikyalu The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from defendants 2 and 3, through two separate sale deeds, dated 19-9-1991, and the said transactions were rectified, through deeds dated 17-6-1992. Their complaint was that the 1st defendant, son of late Manikyalu, had executed a sale deed, in respect, of the very property in favour of 4th defendant, and on the strength of the same, the 4th defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs.

4. The 1st defendant remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the suit. The 3rd defendant sailed with the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the 4th defendant alone. He stated that the suit schedule property was held by late Manikyalu, the father of defendants 1 and 3 and husband of defendant No.2, and that after his death, it devolved upon the 1st defendant, and that he purchased the same for a valuable consideration, under a sale deed dated 19-9-199. He denied the title of the plaintiffs over the land.

5. The trial court decreed the suit, through its judgment dated 26-4-1996. The 4th defendant filed A.S.No.75 of 2000, in the Court of Principal District Judge, East Godavari. The appeal was allowed on 24-8-2005, and the decree passed by the trial court was set aside.

6. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, submits that even though the plea of the plaintiffs that the property accrued to the 2nd defendant from her parents was not proved, the lower appellate court was not justified in setting aside the decree, since the 1st defendant failed to prove the oral partition, pleaded by him. He contends that unless the partition of the property, left by late Manikyalu was proved, it was liable to be partitioned, and the lower appellate court did not consider this aspect at all. Learned counsel submits that the observations made by the lower appellate court about the deeds of rectification are outside the scope of the suit.

7. Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the 4th defendant, submits that the plaintiffs were not sure about the source of their title, and the trial Court decreed the suit, without any basis. He contends that once the plaintiffs failed to prove their plea that the 2nd defendant got the property from her parents, the whole edifice of the suit claim collapsed. Learned counsel contends that the evidence on record discloses that the property was held absolutely by the 1st defendant, and the transfer made by him in favour of 4th defendant is valid and legal.

8. The plaintiffs claimed the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, and in the alternative, a decree of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the sale deeds and the subsequent rectification deeds dated 13-9-1 991 and 17-6-1 992 are true, valid and binding on defendants 1 and 4?

(2) Whether the sale deed dated 19-9-1991 is true, valid and binding on the plainti