JUDGMENT

Vaman Rao, J.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first additional District Judge, Madanapalle dated 2-8-1989 rendered in A.S. No. 288-A of 1985 under which the appeal against the judgment of the Court of the District Munsif, Thamballapalle in O.S. No. 7 of 1981 dated 4-12-1985 dismissing the suit has been allowed resulting in decreeing of the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property.

2. The parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the trial Court.

3. The facts relevant to his appeal may be stated briefly as follows :

4. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants herein and the plaintiff and the third defendant are the respondents. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property comprising part of survey No. 192-A and part of Survey No. 341 with 6 annas share in the well situated in survey No. 341, totally measuring 1.5 acres of Gopidinne village. The plaintiff purchased this land under registered sale deed dated 10-6-1975 (Ex. Al) from one G. Nagireddy, G. Venkatareddi and another, who are brothers. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the purchase. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and started interfering with his possession over the suit property and hence the suit.

5. The third defendant does not claim any Interest in the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. They contested the suit denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. They denied even the title of the plaintiff's vendors' to the suit property. In the written statement, it is averred that the suit property was a divided plot with specific boundaries as described in the suit schedule. It is averred that there are several other owners and enjoyers who are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey Nos. 192-A and 341 of Gopidinne village. It is asserted that defendants 1 and 2 purchased Ac. 1.50 cents of land in survey No. 192-A from Venkata Reddy and one Changareddy under registered gift deed in the year 1971. It is stated that they have sold away 75 cents out of this land to the fourth defendant in the year 1975. They purchased Ac. 1.25 cents in survey No. 341 from original pattadar and subsequently sold away the same to one Nagireddy. Thus, it is averred that the plaintiff's vendors' have no right, title and possession to any extent of land in survey No. 341. Thus, it is claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit schedule land and they are not entitled for declaration of their title. On the same reasoning, it is contended that they are not entitled for injunction.

6. On these pleadings, appropriate issues have been framed. On behalf of plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W. 1 and P.Ws. 2 to 5 have been examined on his behalf and Exs. Al to A5 have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 3 have been examined and Exs. B1 and B2 have been marked. Exs. Cl and C2 have been marked as Court exhibits.

7. On this material, the learned District Munsif held that the suit land which formed part of the larger extent, was not yet divided land and that the plaintiff has not acquired any title to the suit land. He has also held that the possession over the plaint schedule land was not proved and accordingly refused the relief of declaration of title and injunction. It would appear that the fact of execution of sale deed, Ex. Al, in favour of plaintiff by Venkatareddy and Nagireddy is not disputed. The learned District Munsif also appears to have held that the vendors of the plaintiff have also no title and possession over the suit land.

8. The learned District Judge in appeal did not agree with these findings. The learned District Judge held as a matter of fact that plaintiff acquire