The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession is a good title against anyone who cannot show a better title. The court emphasized the importance of long possession and the burden of proof in establishing title to the property.

JUDGMENT :

The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed in A.S.No.49 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, reversing the decree and judgment dated 29.12.2008 passed in O.S No.514 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S No.514 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada (for short “the trial Court”).

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit before the trail Court.

4. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for grant of declaration that the registered sale deed No.252/05 dated 20.01.2005 obtained by the 1st defendant from one Shaik Mastan i.e., 4th defendant and the General Power of Attorney (GPA) is null and void and in operative against the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of ‘A’ schedule property and recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property from the 1st defendant.

5. The 1st plaintiff is the mother of the 2nd plaintiff and the defendants No.2 and 3. They are the owners of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant is the own sister of the 1st plaintiff. The plaint ‘B’ schedule property is a part of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property was purchased by the husband of the 1st plaintiff from one Nalluri Venkateswara Rao on 27.02.1987 under an oral agreement of sale for a valid consideration of Rs.6,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- on the same day towards advance and subsequently he paid the balance amount of Rs.1,000/- in the month of March, 1987. Similarly, Item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was also purchased by the husband of the 1st plaintiff during his lifetime on the same day i.e., on 27.02.1987 from one Pasam Prameela, D/o. Nalluri Venkateswara Rao for a valid consideration of Rs.7,000/- under an oral agreement and paid an amount of Rs.6,000/- on the same day and subsequently paid the balance amount of Rs.1,000/- in the month of March, 1987 and the properties were delivered to the husband of the 1st plaintiff on the same day. Both the plaintiffs were present during the whole transaction along with elders Munaga Rama Rao and Vema Sivaiah of Patamata, Vijayawada. The said Nalluri Venkateswara Rao and Pasam Prameela agreed to register proper sale deeds after obtaining the necessary permissions to register the sale deeds by them in favour of Pothamesetty Atchaiah or a person nominated by him whenever he demands on his expenses. Since the date of delivery of possession of the subject property, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till the death of said Pothamsetty Atchaiah on 04.04.1989. Since then, his wife i.e., the 1st plaintiff and his children i.e., 2nd plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 have been in continuous and joint possession and enjoyment of the same being legal heirs of the said Achaiah. Sri Nalluri Venkateswara Rao also died on 11.5.1994 leaving behind his only daughter Prameela. The subject property was used by the Achaiah and subsequently by the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 for keeping their cattle for some time. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff gave some amount to the 2nd defendant and performed the marriage of 3rd defendant, constructed a three portioned house in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property with the help of 2nd plaintiff. The land revenue is being paid and there is electricity connection to the subject property since 10 years.

6. While the matter stood thus, some disputes arose between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant with regard to money transactions. Then, the 1st defendant, her son and daughter obtained a registered sale deed for the plaint s