Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Rama Mohan, the learned counsel representing Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. On 25.02.1999 this Court made the following order:

"In view of the substantial question of law raised in ground No.4 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the appeal is admitted."

3. On the strength of the pleadings, in fact, the second appeal had been admitted as specified above.

4. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal.

1. Whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit, by reversing the well-considered judgment and decree of the trial Court, especially, when the appellate Court has also upheld the title of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit for injunction simplicitor, ignoring the well established principles of law that possession follows title and refusing to draw such presumption as contemplated by Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act?

3. Whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit against the second defendant also, who is concerned with only item No.2 and who in fact, had not chosen to file any appeal whatsoever?

5. The respective counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the relevant findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also by the appellate Court. For the purpose of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S.No.183 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Razole.

6. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the present second appeal, namely, Somisetti Venkata Rama Krishna Rao filed the suit against the respondents/defendants praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property.

7. The brief averments made in the plaint are as under:

The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property consisting of item Nos.1 and 2 under registered sale deed, dated 30.04.1985 for consideration of Rs.6300/- from one Venguri Kameswaramma. Item No.1 is full extent of Acs.0.36 cents situated in R.S.No.202/5 and item No.2 is full extent of Acs.0.45 cents situated in R.S.No.202/9. Both the lands are zeroyithi dry lands situated in Pasarlapudi Village. The vendor of the Vanguri Kameswaramma purchased the plaint schedule property along with some other property by means of a registered sale deed, dated 15.06.1968 from Garimella Sri Ramachandramurthy and others. The possession of the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff on the date of sale deed on his paying entire sale consideration. The plaintiff planted coconut plants in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property immediately after purchase of the said land. There were three coconut trees in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property by the time of purchase. The item No.2 was a grazing grass field. The plaintiff as well as his predecessor in title has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying taxes due to the Government. Both the defendants also attempted to purchase the plaint schedule property, but they failed to do so. As the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property, it has become as eye sore to the defendants. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is an employee, the defendants, who have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property nor have any right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever, tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Hence, the above suit.

8. The first defendant remained ex parte. The second defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint stating that he is concerned with Item No.1 only. It is also pleaded that one Sri Garimella L