The appellant filed O.S.No.12 of 1998 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule plot, admeasuring 200 sq. yards. It is stated that his grand-father, by name, Bapayya, constructed two Temples in the Village, and set apart the suit plot, which was purchased through sale deed dated 28-03-1916, for the purpose of constructing a building, for the residence of the Archakas. He pleaded that the respondents, who are having their land on the northern and western portion of the suit plot, tried to encroach upon it, by demolishing a portion of old compound wall separating the properties. The appellant further alleged that when one of his agnates submitted a complaint in the Police Station, it was not received, and on the next day itself, the suit was filed.

The 1st respondent herein filed written-statement, and the same was adopted by respondents 2 and 3. They did not dispute the original ownership of the property by Bapayya. However, according to them, one of the grand-sons of Bapayya, by name, G.Subbarao, orally sold the suit land in the year 1959, for a sum of Rs.90/- and ever since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, by tethering cattle, keeping hayricks, etc. They disputed the title and right of the appellant over the land.

The trial Court decreed the suit, through its order dated 19-03-2001. The respondents filed A.S.No.15 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), at Gudivada. The appeal was allowed on 08-01-2004. Hence this Second Appeal.

Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower Appellate Court concentrated mostly on the question of title, and by taking an erroneous view, that the appellant failed to prove his title, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He contends that the plea of the respondents, as to oral sale transaction, is just untenable in law, and as regards the possession, they failed to prove any specific acts thereof. Learned counsel submits that the receipts for the tax paid in respect of the property owned by them, on the western and northern side of the suit plot were wrongly treated by the lower Appellate Court, as those, pertaining to the suit plot. He further submits that the suit plot was earmarked for construction of a residential quarter for the Archakas, and that in the recent past, it has been gifted to the Endowments Department.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, though there is no dispute as to the original ownership of the property, the appellant failed, even to state as to how he can be said to be in possession, in the absence of any allocation of the same in a family partition. He further submits that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the property several decades prior to the suit came to be filed, and that the same was proved through oral and documentary evidence.

The suit was filed for the relief of injunction-simplicitor. The trial Court, however, framed issues, touching on the question of title also, and they read as under:

1. Whether the plaintiff has got any title to, and possession over the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the suit for mere injunction without asking for any declaration of title in respect of the schedule site is maintainable?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the schedule property?

The appellant deposed as PW-1, and one of his close relations deposed as PW-2. The sale deed dated 28-3-1916, through which the property was purchased, by the ancestors of the appellant was filed as Ex.A-1. The 2nd respondent deposed as DW-1, and the Panchayat Secretary deposed as DW-2. Ex.B-1 is the sale deed, through which a plot of 200 sq yards on the western side of the suit schedule prope