In 1965, Myden Saheb of Atkuru Village in Gannavaram Taluk of Krishna District filed a small cause suit being S.C.No.44 of 1965 against Atluri Brahmanandam of the same village. The suit was decreed by Court of District Munsif, Nuzvid, for an amount of about Rs.355/- including costs and interest. The decree holder filed E.P.No.29 of 1967. Judgment Debtor's agricultural wetland admeasuring Acs.1.78 was brought to sale. In the Court auction, Anne Seetharamaiah of the village purchased the same for Rs.5,900/-. The auction purchaser is adopted father of Anne Sai Bapuji, who filed O.S.No.72 of 19841 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, for possession, future profits with interest at six per cent per annum and for payment of Rs.4,500/- with interest six per cent per annum till realization. The suit was decreed, aggrieved by which, defendant Atluri Brahmanandam filed present appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their status in O.S.No.72 of 1984.

2. The case of the plaintiff, Anne Sai Bapuji is that after Seetharamaiah purchased property in the Court auction on 26.04.1968, Brahmanandam filed various applications in E.P.No.29 of 1967 and prevented delivery of possession. Pending these proceedings, the Court Amin delivered possession to Seetharamaiah on 10.07.1974. However, it was alleged that Brahmanandam, taking advantage of pendency of miscellaneous appeal in High Court, trespassed into suit schedule property in January, 1975, and obtained wrongful possession. Anne Sai Bapuji is adopted son of Seetharamaiah, who died intestate on 07.08.1981, as a result of which, all his properties devolved on Anne Sai Bapuji. Therefore, he is entitled for recovery of possession.

3. The defendant opposed the suit. He denied that Anne Sai Bapuji is adopted son of Seetharamaiah. Though he admitted the decree in S.C.No.44 of 1965 and subsequent proceedings, he denied delivery of possession on 10.07.1974 by Court Amin. He also alleged that for recovery of sum of Rs.300/-, selling property worth about Rs.9,000/- is inequitable and that the sale is liable to be set aside. He also denied the allegations of trespass and asserted that all through the proceedings from 1965 it is defendant who is in possession of the property. He challenged the adoption deed set up by the plaintiff, Anne Sai Bapuji.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of late Anne Seetharamaiah?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to file this suit?

3. Whether late Seetharamaiah was put in possession of schedule land on 10.07.1974 by Amin by the Court and whether he was in possession and enjoyment till January, 1975?

4. Whether late Seetharamaiah agreed to reconvey the schedule property to the defendant as contended in para 11 of the written statement?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages, and if so, to what amount?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of schedule land?

7. Whether the court fee paid is correct?

8. Whether the relief relating to possession is not properly valued? 9. To what relief?

5. Evidence was let in by rival parties. P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A9 for plaintiff; and D.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.B1 to B5 as well as Ex.X1 and X2 were marked for other side. Ex.A8 is the registered adoption deed, dated 27.04.1966. Exs.A1 to A4 are the copies of sale certificate in E.P.No.29 of 1967, delivery warrant, delivery receipt and report of Amin in that order. On considering oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court held that Anne Sai Bapuji is adopted son of late Seetharamaiah and therefore, he is entitled to file a suit. The trial Court also found that Seethramaiah was put in possession by Amin on 10.07.1974 and that plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of property. The plea of defendants that Seetharamaiah agreed to reconvey the property was rejected.

6. Learned Counsel for appellant/defendant made submissions challeng