1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dt.13.11.1992 in OS.No.103 of 1979 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Chirala.

2. The appellants are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit. The 1st defendant filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, past profits @ Rs.2,000/-for the year 1978-79, future profits and costs. The suit was filed on 16.10.1979. The subject matter of the suit is an extent of Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No.185/3 and another extent of Acs.1.01 cents in Sy.No.199/3 of Deverapalli Village, Chirala Taluq, Prakasham District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaint schedule property’).

3. The plaintiff contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to plaintiff and his family and the plaintiff’s father late D. Sayanacharyulu purchased the said property from one Mutyala Venkateswarlu (PW.2) and others under registered sale deed Ex.A.1 dt.19.06.1933 for a consideration of Rs.100/-; ever since the said purchase, plaintiff’s father was in possession of plaint schedule property and after his death in the year 1950, plaintiff succeeded to the said property and that mutation was also effected in the year 1932 itself in the name of plaintiff’s father in the Revenue records. He further contended that his father was a private medical practitioner practicing at Jandrapeta and therefore, the plaint schedule property which is located at Devarapalli Village was entrusted to one Late Ganeshula Subbaiah (for short, ‘Subbiah’) in or about 1941 and the latter used to cultivate the plaint schedule property. It was contended that out of the income derived, Subbaiah used to pay the cist on behalf of plaintiff’s father and if any amount remained, he used to pay the same to plaintiff’s father towards Maktha; that the lands are dry lands and no substantial income was derived by plaintiff’s father and he did not even insist regularly for payment of rent on account of mutual confidence in those years; after plaintiff’s father died in 1950, plaintiff and his brother Lakshmanudu inherited the said property. At the time of the death of plaintiff’s father, plaintiff was aged about 10 years and so the management of the properties was entrusted to plaintiff’s maternal uncle Pusuluri Ramacharyulu and he attended to the management of the property. The plaintiff contended that during that time also Subbaiah cultivated the said land as tenant; that Ramacharyulu used to go to the suit village and collect the rents yearly during the season; that Subbaiah died in 1966; and that 1st defendant is his daughter and 2nd defendant is his son-in-law. He alleged that the plaintiff was also practicing doctor in Jandrapeta, that after the death of Subbaiah, defendants approached plaintiff’s maternal uncle and plaintiff for lease of the land and it was granted to defendants @ Rs.200/- p.a. on condition that defendants would have to pay cist due each year but due to mutual confidence no written document was executed in that regard. He alleged that every year, defendant Nos.1 and 2 used to pay amounts regularly up to 1977 and considering the loyalty and poverty of defendant Nos.1 and 2, plaintiff did not make any claim for enhanced rent as he was himself a reputed medical practitioner. The plaintiff contended that his maternal uncle Ramacharyulu died on 14.04.1977 and thereafter defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not pay rents for the year 19781979 in spite of demands. As Revenue officials were implementing provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, plaintiff approached the Dy. Tahsildar at Devarapalli and submitted a declaration on 13.09.1979. At that time he came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have left the Devarapalli village and that the 3rd defendant was cultivating the land and that he obtained a sale deed dt.30.09.1977 (Ex.B.5) from defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff contended that the said sale deed is sham and not binding on him