JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful defendant filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), aggrieved by the decree and judgment, dated 28.02.2020 passed in A.S.No.33 of 2017 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District confirming the decree and judgment, dated 11.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.316 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.S.No.316 of 2005.

3. Plaintiffs, sisters, filed suit O.S.No.316 of 2005 against the defendant for declaration of title and for ejectment of the defendant from land of an extent of Ac.0-90 cents out of total extent of Ac.2-55 cents in survey No.708 with patta No.126 situated in Varini village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District (hereinafter referred to “schedule property”).

4. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that the schedule property originally belonged to N. Venkata Reddy; that the grandfather of the plaintiffs purchased the schedule property and other extent under registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1959; that plaintiff’s grandfather died leaving behind Suri Ramanaiah, father of the plaintiffs; that said Suri Ramanaiah married one Rajeswaramma alias Audiseshamma; that out of their wedlock they were blessed with the plaintiffs (daughters) and their brother Ranga Rao (son); that mother of plaintiffs executed a Will, dated 06.06.1991 bequeathing an extent of Ac.0-35 cents to the plaintiffs; that in the said Will it was also recited that the schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs and other arrangements made in the family; that the plaintiff’s brother used to cultivate the schedule property till 14.03.2002 as the plaintiffs were away from the village by virtue of first plaintiff’s marriage; that the defendant, who is resident of Varini village, trespassed into the schedule property and started cultivating the land after the death of their brother; that the plaintiffs got issued legal notice, dated 28.12.2004 (Ex.A3) and filed the suit for aforesaid reliefs.

5. The sole defendant i.e. the appellant herein filed written statement and contended inter alia that the schedule property was devolved upon the plaintiffs’ brother i.e. Ranga Rao from his ancestors; that said Ranga Rao sold the schedule property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs.39,000/-per acre under agreement of sale, dated 30.05.1995 and possession of the said property was delivered to him; that since then the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property; that the defendant paid advance amount of Rs.31,346/- towards first instalment to the plaintiffs’ brother and on receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.2,104/- the said Ranga Rao executed agreement of sale; that the Mandal Parishad Office, Vidavalur, vide proceedings RC No.A/452/2003 dated 13.03.2003 (Ex.B3), granted Rs.3,400/- for development of the schedule property; that the defendant has been paying land revenue; that in the year, 1998 Panchayat Raj Department tried to lay road in the schedule property and also in the properties belonging to others resulted in making representation; that an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in survey No.708 which is possessed by the defendant was occupied by Panchayat Raj Department; that Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur addressed a letter on 05.06.1998 for grant of compensation; that legal heirs of Ranga Rao are proper and necessary parties and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties; that on receipt of legal notice, the matter was placed before village elders, who in turn advised the plaintiffs to drop further action and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. During the course of trial, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 besides examining PW3 one of the attestors to the Will and PW4. Evidence of P.W.2. is eschewed. Exs.A1 to A4 were m