JUDGMENT :

This second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the suit. Smt. Sure Butchamma was the sole plaintiff in the suit. She is 1st respondent herein and it seems that she died and 2nd respondent was brought on record as her legal representative.

2. Since notice before admission was ordered and since learned counsel on both sides appeared and argued the matter before admission, the same has fallen for consideration now.

3. O.S.No.790 of 2003 is a suit filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property and consequently to evict the 1st defendant from the suit schedule property and put the plaintiff in possession of the same and for granting mesne profits and for costs and such other reliefs.

4. Plaintiff-Smt. Sure Butchamma pleaded that her husband Sri Sure Kotlu originally purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 10.01.1969 and during his lifetime he made a family arrangement during January 1988 in which Ac.0.62 cents which is the plaint schedule property was granted to the plaintiff while different extents of other properties were granted to the children. After the death of her husband, she was cultivating the plaint schedule lands. While so, defendant No.2, who is her son, was acting against her interest and duped her and brought into the lands defendant No.1 and thereafter they together by manipulation obtained mutation of entries in the revenue records and now defendant No.1 has been in possession of the properties without any manner of right. Since acts of defendant No.1 created cloud over the title of the plaintiff, the suit is filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

5. Contesting the suit, 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that by an agreement for sale dated 25.05.1995 executed by the plaintiff and 2nd defendant he purchased the property and paid Rs.66,000/- towards part of the sale consideration and he gained possession of the property and he has been cultivating the property and at the time of agreement for sale the vendors also gave him the original link document dated 10.01.1969. While 1st defendant was putting efforts to have the registered sale deed by placing the matter before elders, the present suit is filed. It is this defendant, who has been in possession and who has been in paying tax. For these reasons, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The son of the plaintiff, who was shown as 2nd defendant, filed his written statement supporting the version of the 1st defendant. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7. Both parties adduced their evidence. For plaintiff, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. For defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. CWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked.

8. After due consideration of the evidence on record and on considering the arguments on both sides, learned trial Court decided all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit without costs.

9. Then the plaintiff carried the matter to first appellate Court/VII Additional District Judge, Eluru and filed A.S.No.95 of 2010. The learned first appellate Court recorded the various grounds urged in the appeal and settled the following points for consideration :

1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for possession of the schedule property after evicting the respondents/defendants from the schedule property?

3. Whether there are any reasonable grounds to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower Court?

10. After deliberating upon the evidence and the precedent, the learned first appellate Court found t