The judgment in O.S.No.93/1998, declaring the 3rd defendant as the legal heir of the original owner, established her right to the property. The Sale Deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favor of the plaintiff were found to be valid and binding. The Sale Deeds executed by the 3rd defendant in favor of the 1st defendant were also found to be valid.

JUDGMENT

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 29/6/2016 in O.S.No.39/2002 passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, decreeing plaintiff's suit and directing the defendants to vacate the plaint A and B schedule property and handover the same to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant filed the instant appeal.

2. The facts which led to file this appeal by the 1st defendant are succinctly thus:

(a) Admittedly, the plaint schedule property in an extent of 864 square yards with constructions thereon situated in Vijayawada belongs to one Chirravuru Sundarayya Seetharavamma which she obtained under a Gift Deed dtd. 14/10/1921 executed by her parents towards 'Pasupu Kumkuma'. Her husband is C.Sarveswara Rao. Seetharavamma died intestate and issueless in the year 1974 and consequently her husband C.Sarveswara Rao succeeded her property. While so, the said C.Sarveswara Rao also died on 13/6/1980. To this extent, the facts are not in dispute.

(b) While so, as per plaint averments, C.Sarveswara Rao died issueless and intestate and therefore, Chirravuru Venkata Rao, the father of 2nd defendant and brother of C.Sarveswara Rao, succeeded his properties including the plaint schedule property. His further case is that there arose some disputes among the relations of C.Sarveswara Rao resulted in filing of suits O.S.Nos.290/1980, 331/1981 and 460/1981 in the Civil Courts, Vijayawada. At the intervention of elders, the parties compromised and they entered into a registered Partition Deed dtd. 12/12/1984. As per the terms of said partition, C.Venkata Rao got 864 sq. yards and he sold a portion of the said property to others on 31/3/1981. The remaining portion of 670 sq. yards of the site with superstructures thereon was sold by C.Venkata Rao and his son Ramana Murthy / 2nd defendant to the plaintiff in the year 1996 under four Sale Deeds covered by Ex.A1 to A4. Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

(c) While so, 3rd defendant claiming herself as daughter of late C.Sarveswara Rao born through his third wife Lakshmi and that she succeeded the estate of C.Sarveswara Rao, filed Pauper suit in O.P.No.215/1992 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against C.Venkata Rao, his son C.Ramana Murthy and some others in respect of the plaint schedule property and sought for recovery of A to D schedule properties in that suit.

(d) Before filing the suit, the 3rd defendant executed Sale Agreement dtd. 24/1/1993 in favour of Devineni Baji Prasad in respect of plaint schedule property in OP No.215/1992. Thereafter she executed GPA in favour of one Ayodhya Balakrishna to deal with the Court litigation in OP No.215/1992. As she was not the daughter of Sri Sarveswara Rao and she had no chance of succeeding in the suit, she entered into a compromise with Sri Venkata Rao and Ramana Murthy through her GPA by taking substantial amount from them and cancelled the Sale Agreement and returned the advance amount received from her vendee. Then she remained absent in Court and O.P.No.215/1992 was dismissed and the interim injunction petition was also dismissed.

(e) Thereafter, C. Venkata Rao and C.Ramana Murthy sold the plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of plaintiff in 1996 under four Sale Deeds covered by Exs.A1 to A4.

(f) The schedule property consists of ground and first floor. In a portion of first floor the 3rd defendant was in occupation and she promised to vacate and hand over to the plaintiff, but she failed to do so and claimed some more amount from the plaintiff to hand over the possession. While so, there are several tenants in the ground floor. The 1st defendant was running Venkataramana Travels in a portion of the property as a tenant. The plaintiff issued notice dtd. 26/3/1999 to the tenants to vacate their respective portions except to the 1st defendant, as at that time, he took initiation to settle the matter with other tenants to g