JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal preferred against decree and judgment dated 16.07.2009 in O.S.No.1145 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam, under Section 96 CPC.

2. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and the deceased 3rd respondent was the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant is the 4th respondent. During pendency of the suit, the 3rd respondent died. His L.Rs. being the respondents 5 to 8 were brought on record. The 1st respondent also died during pendency of this appeal. His wife the 2nd respondent and the respondents 9 to 11, who have been brought on record, are his L.Rs. In the memorandum of appeal, it is stated that the respondents 3 to 8 are not necessary parties to this appeal.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 instituted the suit against the appellant and the 3rd as well as the 4th respondents for eviction from the plaint schedule property, for past mesne profits of Rs.90,000/-, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 from alienating or otherwise encumbering the plaint ‘C’ schedule property and to direct an enquiry into future mesne profits.

4. The plaint ‘C’ schedule property is the property in dispute. It shall be referred to hereinafter, as ‘the suit property’, for convenience. It is a site of an extent of 1122 ½ Sq.yards together with asbestos sheet roofed shed bearing Door No. 8-186 covered by S.Nos.187/2B and 187/2E at Vepagunta village, within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule.

5. Plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules together constitute plaint ‘C’ schedule property, which are of 607 ½ Sq.yards and 515 Sq.yards respectively.

6. The claim of the respondents 1 and 2 in the plaint is that the 2nd respondent has purchased the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties under registered sale deeds dated 21.02.1994 and 22.02.1994 respectively from Sri Goka Balaiah, who is father of the appellant and the 3rd respondent, for valuable consideration. It is further case of the respondents 1 and 2 in the plaint that at the request of Sri Goka Balaiah, he was permitted to remain in the suit property even after he sold this property to the 2nd respondent.

7. The respondents 1 and 2 further averred in the plaint that the appellant instituted O.S.No.115 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against them, their father and the 3rd respondent for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and allot one such share to him while further seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This suit was dismissed on contest and appeal presented in A.S.No. 128 of 2002 on the file of this Court, was dismissed during pendency of this appeal, as the record makes out.

8. It is averred further in the plaint that since the appellant, 3rd and 4th respondents have been in unauthorised possession of the suit property, who have been realising profits from fruit bearing trees therein while also leasing out, in as much as the 4th respondent was their tenant of a part of the suit property, since there is a possibility of setting up a plea of adverse possession by them in case the suit is filed for their eviction from the date of purchase of the property by the respondents 1 and 2, it is the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 in the plaint that they were constrained to lay the suit for such reliefs. The 1st respondent was added as one of the plaintiffs according to them, since relief was claimed against him in the earlier suit in O.S.No.115 of 1995.

9. The averments in the plaint relevant for the present appeal alone are considered from the plaint and it also traces out the title of the vendor of the 2nd respondent and source of title of the suit property.

10. The appellant r