This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2013 in AS No. 6 of 2011 of the II-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2011 in OS No. 314 of 2005 of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

2. The appellant herein is second defendant in the above suit. The first respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit OS No. 314 of 2004 for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and the second respondent/first defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Acs.3-00 gts in Sy.No.10/AA [10/D] of Syed Mazavarpeta Revenue Village of Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. The plaintiff contended that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 29.4.1986 and that after its purchase he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He contended that he was issued pattedar passbook and title deed and had also raised loans from the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Thadwai Village on the basis of the said documents. He contended that defendants colluded together and created false documents in respect of the plaint schedule property and they tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on 22.7.2005. He contended that he had leased out the land to one Gannavarapu Veera Reddy in 2005 and that he had raised groundnut and green gram crops in the plaint schedule property and in order to protect the possession of himself and the lessee, he had filed the suit.

4. The first defendant remand ex parte.

5. The second defendant/appellant herein filed a written statement admitting the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property till 1994 but contended that subsequently, plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale dated 15.4.1994 in his favour to sell away the plaint schedule property for Rs. 15,000/- per acre and received Rs. 20,000/- as advance. He also contended that the entire sale consideration was paid later and he was also delivered possession on 12.3.1995 by plaintiff, that revenue authorities issued pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour and mutated his name in the pahani for the year 1994-95. He therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW 1 and also three more witnesses as PWs. 2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. The second defendant examined himself as DW 1 and four other witnesses as DWs. 2 to 5 and marked Exs.B1 to B28.

8. By judgment and decree dated 24.2.2011, the trial Court dismissed the suit. It held that Exs.A1 to A8 are all prior to the suit and therefore they cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It held that Exs.B1 to B28 would show that the second defendant is in possession over the plaint schedule property after 1995. It held that the plaintiff was residing in Suryapet since 1991 and therefore he could not have raised any crops in the property from 2004-06 and therefore the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 in that regard cannot be believed. It also held that the alleged lessee Gannavarapu Veera Reddy was not examined by the plaintiff and that DWs. 2 to 4, who were neighbouring landowners, were examined by the second defendant to show possession of the second defendant. It also held that plaintiff got mutated name of second defendant in revenue records through the first defendant and therefore the second defendant became the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed AS No. 6 of 2011.

10. In appeal IA No. 1274 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff to receive the pahani for the year