The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.84 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur, is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties comprising of Item No.1: a House at Nekhunambad Village and Item No.2: Acs.3-74 cents of land at Salakalaveedu village of Prakasam District. He pleaded that item No.2 and the eastern portion of the item No.1 fell to his share in a partition that took place in the year 1966 and that thereafter, he purchased the western portion of item No.1 from one Mr. Maturi Subbarangaiah and ever since then he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to him, the 1st respondent was the kept mistress and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (defendant Nos.2 and 3) are the daughters, of late Maturi Subbarangaiah. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the legal representatives of the 1st respondent.

2. The appellant pleaded that the entries in the revenue records and the proceedings that ensued before the Land Reforms Tribunal confirm his ownership and possession over the property. His grievance was that one week prior to the filing of the suit, the respondents and their followers, who were shown as defendant Nos.6 to 10 in the suit, threatened to dispossess him from the property.

3. 2nd defendant filed a written statement i.e. the 2nd respondent herein, and the same was adopted by the other contesting defendants. According to them, the schedule properties are the self- acquisitions of Maturi Subbarangaiah and that the appellant is the stranger to the Maturi family much less related to Subbarangaiah. According to them, the surname of the appellant is Darimadugu and not Maturi, and that he is a native of Racherla village. They further pleaded that the father of the appellant came to the house of Subbarangaiah as a farm servant. It was alleged that Maturi Rangasayamma wife of Subbaraigaiah filed O.S.No.60 of 1971 in the court of District Munsif, Giddalur for maintenance for herself and her daughter, 3rd respondent herein, and that the appellant managed to get certain documents filed by Subbarangaiah making him to believe that unless partition is pleaded, charge may be created against all his properties. It was also pleaded that Subbarangiaah executed a Will on 09-01-1984 in favour of the 1st respondent bequeathing the suit schedule properties. They pleaded that the appellant was never in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and that he has no concern whatever.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 17-04-1996. The appellant filed A.S.No.138 of 1996 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 30-06-2004. Hence, this Second Appeal.

5. M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client filed various documents such as, the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal (Ex.A-1), sale deed executed by Subba Rangaiah in favour of the appellant (Ex.A-2), certified copy of deposition in O.S. No.60 of 1971 (Ex.A5) and other documents; and still the relief was not granted. He contends that excessive importance was given to certain proceedings initiated before the revenue authorities that the approach adopted by the trial Court and the lower appellate court cannot be countenanced in law.

6. Sri A. Giridhar Rao & P. Venkat Rao, learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the suit was filed as a speculative measure and that the falsity of the claim in the plaint is evident from the fact that though the appellant was neither coparcener nor co-owner of late Subbaranaigah, partition was pleaded between them. They further submit that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court found that item No.1 of the schedule property on the one hand and the one said to have been purchased under Ex.A-2 are different from each other and that the appellant never acquired any title over ite