1. Defendants in O.S.No.813 of 1993 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Sulthanabad, who are the respondents in A.S.No.27 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Appellate Court holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property by reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court.

2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties before the trial Court in O.S.No.813 of 1993 will be adopted through out the Judgment.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit initially for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and later he converted the suit into a declaratory suit claiming declaration of title over the suit schedule property.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff, that he purchased the land admeasuring Ac.3.09 cents in Sr.No.187 situated at Rayakaldevpalli Village in Julapalli Mandal out of Ac.4.32 guntas from late Samudrala Bhadraiah for consideration of Rs.4,000/- and since then the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff mortgaged the property in favour of Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank (CADB) and obtained agricultural loan and he has been paying land revenue to the department since the date of purchase. The unregistered Sale Deed is not traced despite exercising due diligence and the efforts of the plaintiff became in vain to trace the document and therefore, the plaintiff relied on secondary evidence to substantiate his contention.

5. It is contended that the plaintiff also perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff pleaded that unregistered Sale Deed was scribed by Manda Rajesham, executed by Samudrala Bhadraiah and attested by Erravelli Rama Rao and M. Veeramallu. Defendant No.1 is the sole legal heir of the original pattadar Late Samudrala Bhadraiah and Defendant No.2 is the purchaser of total extent of Ac.4.36 guntas from D.1 by registered Document No.1083/93 dt.29.07.1993 situated at Rayakaldevpalli Vilalge of Julapalli Mandal. The alleged transfer is a sham transfer and in pursuance of the purchase, Defendant Nos. 1 to 11 made an attempt to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. The alleged Sale Deed executed by D.1 in favour of D.2 is invalid for the reason that Defendant No.1 had no land in Sy.No.187. Though the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, by obtaining document bearing No.1083/93 dt. 29.07.1993 and they are openly proclaiming in the village that they will cut the crop in the land, hence, he filed the present suit against the defendants for the aforesaid reliefs.

6. Defendant No.1 remained ex parte. Defendant No.2 filed Written Statement contending that the alleged purchase by the plaintiff under unregistered Sale Deed is neither true nor valid and it was never executed by late Samudrala Bhadraiah during his life time and that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

7. It is specifically contended by the defendant that the total extent in Sy.No.187 is Ac.19.17 gunts. Out of it, one Mangalapalli Narayana was the owner of half share i.e., Ac.9.23 guntas and the other half belongs to Samudrala Rajaiah and Badhraih, who are entitled to claim half of Ac.9.23 guntas and thus, Rajaiah and Badhraiah got Ac.4.32 cents each and the suit schedule property was allotted to Samudrala Bhadraiah, father of D.1. Defendant No.2 purchased Ac.3.09 guntas from late Bhadraiah during his life time at the first instance more than 20 years ago and the remaining share of Bhadraiah was divided upon his son/D.1 after his death and from him, Defendant No.2 purchased and