No question of law arising for consideration in the instant appeal.

1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.19-09-2013 in A.S.No.52 of 2012 of the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda reversing the judgment and decree dt.27-02-2012 in O.S.No.232 of 2007 of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit.

3. The respondent filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which is a vacant site being plot No.9 admeasuring 250 sq. yds. in Sy.No.1289 of Arjalabavi village, Nalgonda Mandal and District (for short ‘the suit plot’).

4. The plaintiff’s case is that she purchased the suit plot under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dt.13-12-2006 from one Kolanupaka Prabhakar Rao who in turn purchased the same under Ex.A-3 dt.29-08-1985, she was put in possession and enjoyment of the property; the defendant who is a stranger wanted to grab the above property by dispossessing her forcibly; that the defendant came to the plot on 06-05-2007 along with anti social elements and tried to dispossess her from the suit plot and therefore she filed the suit.

5. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement contending that he had purchased suit plot under Ex.B-1 registered sale deed dt.16-07-1985 and subsequently got executed a rectification deed Ex.B-2 dt.29-05-2007 correcting the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B-1 dt.16-07-1985. He contended that the suit plot was part of the land originally belonging to Takoor Kalamma, Itikala Pichi Reddy, Jinna Yadagiri Reddy and Y.Sathi Reddy and to manage the land in Sy. No.1289, GPA was executed in the name of Itikala Pitchi Reddy and Jinna Yadagiri Reddy; that on the date of purchase by the plaintiff’s vendor Prabhakar Rao under Ex.A-3, Kalamma or her GPA holders have no saleable rights or interest in the suit plot and so they could not have delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff. He contended that the plaintiff with a mala fide intention created Ex.A-1 registered sale deed to grab the suit plot belonging to defendant under the guise of the injunction order passed by the Court.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. The defendants examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.

8. By judgment and decree dt.27-02-2012, the trial Court dismissed the suit. It held that the defendant had purchased suit plot under Ex.B-1 dt.16-07-1985, obtained possession and the said sale took place prior to the execution of Ex.A-3 dt.29-08-1985 in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor and therefore the defendant alone had got rights over the suit plot. It held that the neither the plaintiff nor her vendor would get any right in the suit plot because their possession is not established. It also held that the boundaries were wrongly mentioned in Ex.B-1 and subsequently this was rectified under Ex.B-2. It held that the plaintiff’s vendor had no saleable right in the property and therefore the plaintiff did not get any right therein. It also held that the plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the plaint schedule plot.

9. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.52 of 2012 before the I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda.

10. By Order dt.19-09-2013, the said appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside.

11. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff purchased the suit plot from her vendor under Ex.A-1 and the plaintiff’s vendor had purchased it from the GPA holders of the original owner Kalamma under Ex.A-3 dt.29-08-1985; that the plaintiff’s vendor was in possession of the suit plot till the date of execution of Ex.A-1 and that later the plaintiff was in possession. It held that the rectification deed Ex.B-2 dt.29-05-2007 was obtained by defendant after the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained int