1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003 passed in O.S.No.98 of 1998 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience.

3. In Ritesh Tewari Vs. State of U.P. ((2010) 10 SCC 677), the Apex Court observed as follows:-

“Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest.”

4. When the people have no regard for truth, it becomes a difficult job to the Court to know the true version. However, the Courts have to examine the entire evidence with analytical approach and conclusions have to be drawn on proper appreciation of evidence and on the basis of settled legal principle. A study of chronological events rationally reveals probabilities of the case of each party.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiff, who was having approximately 60 acres of land, filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal on 11.04.1975 and had shown the suit schedule land in his declaration. Out of the total extent of Ac.22.76 cents of the suit schedule land, Ac.13.32 cents is in D.No.436/1 and Ac.9.38 cents is in D.No.826, situated in Agnigundala Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District. The plaintiff worked as Village Karanam till 1959 and subsequently as Village Sarpanch for 15 years. The first defendant is the father of the second defendant and they are from Kotapalli Gudur Village and Mandal, Nellore District. According to the first defendant, he sold away his landed property at his native village and came over to Agnigundala Village, Guntur District and purchased the suit land for cultivation. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff executed a sale deed on 16.07.1975 in Ex.B.1 in favour of defendants in respect of the suit land and the said sale deed was registered on the same day. The recitals of Ex.B.1 go to show that the plaintiff had delivered possession of the suit land to the defendants. It also shows that there was an agreement of sale between the parties agreeing to sell the suit schedule land to the first defendant dated 06.06.1958 (Ex.A.29). The plaintiff himself has filed Ex.A.29. Defendants 1 and 2 and the wife of the first defendant mortgaged the suit schedule land and some other property at their native place to State Bank of India, Vinukonda Branch, Guntur District, and obtained loan of Rs.27,000/- on 26.04.1976 and the plaintiff stood as guarantor for the said loan transaction. Ex.B2 copy of the plaint reveals that revival letters were also executed in favour of the said bank in 1977 and 1979. Though the plaintiff pleaded before the Land Reforms Tribunal that he sold the suit schedule land to the defendants and executed Ex.B.1 – registered sale deed on 16.07.1975 and that the said sale deed was executed in pursuance of the earlier agreement of sale executed by him under Ex.A.29, the Land Reforms Tribunal did not accept the said contention of the plaintiff on the grounds that he did not file any document in support of his contention and the registration was done after the notified date and, accordingly, computed the land to the holding of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants are not the parties to the said proceedings. The plaintiff also surrendered four acres of land which was found to be in excess of the ceiling area in some other land covered by Survey Nos.807/1, 21/2, 102/2C and 176. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed the said order under Ex.A.3 on 21.08.1976. Thus, the plaintiff did not surrender the suit schedule land though he was declared as excess land holder. Since defendants 1 and 2 and the wife of the first defendant failed to discharge the loan amount, the State Bank of India filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 1980 against them and also the plaintiff. The said sui