IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and proper legal action, and the need for plaintiffs to make clear and consistent pleadings to support their claims.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment, dated 24.07.2018 in O.S.No.213 of 2017, on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada ('Additional Senior Civil Judge' for short), whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which was filed with a prayer to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having right, title and possession and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her agents and other men from ever interfering with the plaintiff's right, title and peaceful possession and further restraining the defendant not to encumber or to alienate the plaint schedule property.

2. The parties to this Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the plaint averments is that the plaintiff is no other than the elder brother of the defendant. He purchased the plaint schedule property from one Rajagiri Balarama Murthy and others vide a deed of sale on 19.12.1978 bearing registered document No.5772/1978. The plaint schedule property is vacant site, described in the plaint schedule. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Recently, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant with the active connivance of her henchmen, fabricated, cooked up and manufactured an illusory document of sale, dated 26.12.2016, on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mangalagiri, bearing Document No.13636/2016, alleged to have been executed by one Pamulapati Kanchaiah of Vijayawada, alleged to be the General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid sale deed, it was alleged that the defendant paid the entire consideration of Rs.38,40,000/- to the alleged vendor in installments prior to the date of alleged sale deed. It was also alleged that the original document of title was lost and could not be traced out though a report was lodged to Patamata, Autonagar Police Station. It was also alleged in the sale deed that possession was delivered by the vendor to the vendee, but in fact there was no delivery of possession and there is no oral sale in favour of Mandapu Venkateswara Rao as alleged in the document of sale, dated 26.12.2016. The alleged G.P.A. bearing document No.2447/1994, on the file of Joint Sub-Registry, is nothing but fabricated, manufactured and illegal document and the contents thereof are not true. The contents of the sale deed, dated 26.12.2016, are false and collusive and there is no iota of truth in it. The defendant has no financial capacity to pay huge amount of Rs.38,40,000/- either to the alleged vendor or to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao at any point of time, even in installments. So, basing on the alleged sale deed, dated 26.12.2016, no right, title and possession was flown to the defendant. After came to know about the illegal sale deed, dated 26.12.2016, the plaintiff lodged a report to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, on 23.02.2017 against acknowledgement. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant got filed her written statement denying the averments in the plaint and the contention of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. The plaintiff suppressed the facts willfully and filed the present suit with an intention to grab the property of the defendant by hook or crook. The plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney on 21.09.1994 in favour of Pamulapati Kanchaiah, S/o Venkateswara Rao and got it registered as document No.2447/1994 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Vijayawada. In the said document, it was categorically stated that the plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property to one Mandapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o Ramaiah on 21.09.1994 and an agreement of sale was executed in favour of Mandapu Venkateswara Rao. It was further stated that as the plaintiff has some