Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.113 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam is the appellant. Initially, the suit was filed by respondent No.1 for the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellant and respondent No.3 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.0.26 cents and Ac.0.4 cents respectively. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 got himself impleaded in the suit as plaintiff No.2. The plea of respondent No.1 was that the suit schedule property was held by his father late Chandrasekhara Rao and on his death, it devolved upon him. He stated that on account of his employment, he was far away from his native place and taking advantage of the same, the appellant and respondent No.3 tried to encroach into the property.

2. Defendant No.2 i.e. respondent No.2 herein remained ex parte. The suit was contested by the appellant. He pleaded that in a family partition among respondent No.1 and his three other brothers, by names Ramana Murthy, Appala Narayana and Gopala Rao, the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of Ramana Murthy and that he in turn, through his G.P.A., sold the property to the appellant under two sale deeds executed on 26.07.1993. It was pleaded that ever since the purchase, the appellant is in possession of the property and that pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to him by the competent authority.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 24.08.1999. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.14 of 2003 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal was allowed on 27.10.2003. Hence, this second appeal.

4. Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit, though respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to prove their possession over the property. He contends that respondent No.1 was not clear as to his plea and there were several inconsistencies. He further submits that in the plaint, the plea was that the property devolved through succession, whereas in the course of trial, he came forward with the plea of partition through Ex.A7. Learned counsel further submits that the lower appellate Court has devoted most of its discussion to the weakness of the case of the appellant, than to verify whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case for grant of injunction at all.

5. Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that being the true and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and being in possession, respondent No.1 is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. He submits that the very basis for the claim of the appellant vis-à-vis the land was shaky and untenable, since the so-called sale deeds were not executed by any of the brothers of respondent No.1. He further submits that if in fact, the appellant purchased the property from anyone, the sale deed could have been proved only by examining the vendors. Learned counsel submits that the evidence on record clearly discloses that the so-called G.P.A., who executed Exs.B2 and B3 is a fraudulent person and taking advantage of the absence of respondent No.1 and his brothers, the said G.P.A. played mischief.

6. The appeal arises out of a reversing judgment. The suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, namely whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B19 were filed. The suit was dismissed and in the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely whether plaintif