The plaintiff in O.S.No.1023 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor is the appellant. She filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that the suit land was purchased from one Sri C.Krishnaiah (P.W.3), brother of the 1st respondent herein, through a sale deed, dated 10.11.1999 (Ex.A1) and that ever since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was also pleaded that P.W.3 got the suit schedule property in a family partition between himself, the 1st respondent and his other brothers in the year 1979 and thereafter, he was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land. The appellant is also said to have been issued pattadar pass book, marked as Ex.A2. Her grievance was that the 1st respondent and his sons, respondents 2 and 3, started proclaiming title over the land and trying to interfere with her possession.

2. The 1st respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that at the age of 12 years, he went away from the joint family, which was in utmost poverty, and worked as a farm servant. He stated that over the period, he made savings and purchased the suit schedule property under sale deeds, Exs.B1 and B2 in the years 1969 and 1973 respectively. He denied partition pleaded by the appellant. It is also stated that pattadar pass books and title deeds were manipulated and there are certain interpolations in them.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 30.10.2004. Thereupon, the respondents filed A.S.No.203 of 2004 in the Court of the IX Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 24.04.2012. Hence, this second appeal.

4. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant, submits that once the relationship between P.W.3, the vendor of the appellant and the 1st defendant as brothers, is established, a presumption ought to have been drawn as regards existence of joint family and possession of the joint properties anterior to the partition. He contends that the trial Court has examined the oral and documentary evidence and has arrived at a conclusion that P.W.3 got the suit schedule property in the family partition and thereafter, he sold it in favour of the appellant. He contends that the lower appellate Court has ignored several important factors, such as there being pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of P.W.3 and the appellant and that the 1st respondent and his brother, P.W.3, and their other brothers executing Ex.A7 in the year 1973.

5. The appellant rested her claim on the purchase made by her through Ex.A1 from P.W.3. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased by him in the years 1969 and 1973 and that the title thereof did not pass on to anyone.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

1. Whether the vendors of the plaintiff have right, title to alienate the suit property to the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the suit without a prayer for possession is maintainable?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration (of his right over the) suit properties?

7. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were filed. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the respondents, the lower appoint Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether P.W.3 got title to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1?

2. Whether D-1 had purchased the written statement schedule property under Exs.B1 and B2 with his own earnings and it is his sel