2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1996 passed by the court of Subordinate Judge at Chodavaram in A.S.No.25/1989 in allowing the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1989 passed by the court of Principal District Munsif, Chodavaram in O.S.No.173/1983 and thereby dismissing the suit for injunction, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal.

3. During the pendency of the first appeal, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The original 1st defendant also died during the pendency of the second appeal and by order dated 7.11.2000 in CMP.No.6835/1998, his legal representatives were brought on record.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the original suit.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that in the partition between himself and his brothers that took place about fifty years back, he got Ac.1-00 of wet and dry lands. Thereafter, out of his own efforts, he purchased the suit A and B schedule properties with the income he got from the trade in cattle and vegetables. There was no sufficient ancestral nucleus for him to acquire the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the suit schedule properties are his self acquired properties. His further case is that, after the death of his wife Ramayamma and his concubine Bandaru Yerukkamma, he married one Chinna as per caste customs in the form of manumu marriage. The 1st defendant is his illegitimate son through Bandaru Yerukkamma. Both the plaintiff and Chinna brought up the 1st defendant and performed his marriage. The 1st defendant has been living separately for the last fifteen years and thus the plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and that the 1st defendant has no right or possession in those properties, but he is trying to sell away some of the suit properties for a nominal price to meet the expenses for his vices. On 12.6.1983 the 1st defendant followed by other defendants threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences if he entries into any of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction.

6. The 1st defendant filed written statement and while denying the averments made in the plaint, stated that after the death of plaintiff's wife, he married the mother of the 1st defendant as per caste customs and later developed illicit intimacy with her sister by name Chinna and after the death of his mother, the said Chinna started staying in the house of the plaintiff and bore children through him without any lawful marriage. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff, himself and other family members. The properties mentioned in the written statement fell to his share in the oral family arrangement for partition, which took place in the year 1977 and since the said partition, himself, plaintiff and other family members have been enjoying their respective shares exclusively, acting individually and making individual transactions in their own right. The plaintiff has no right or title, whatsoever in the properties that fell to his share. The suit is filed vexatiously, to harass him and to have unlawful gain. It is further averred that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the sons of the plaintiffs. With these averments, the 1st defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. The 4th defendant filed counter and while supporting the averments of the 1st defendant in the written statement, further stated that the he is a bona fide purchaser of some of the suit schedule properties which fell to the share of the 1st defendant in the family arrangement, for a valuable consideration under two sale deeds dated 16.3.1983 and 28.4.1983 in respect of the properties in S.No.209/18 of K.Kotapadu village along with the foundation and partly raised walls and later sold awa