The court affirmed that a registered sale deed establishes title, while failure to comply with statutory notice requirements under tenancy law renders claims voidable.

Judgment :

(V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.)

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("C.P.C." for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 07.12.2011 in A.S.No.278 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 04.08.2010 in O.S.No.689 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

2. The appellant Nos.1 to 8 herein are defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 to 10, 1^st respondent herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are defendant Nos.1, 4 and 11 in O.S.No.689 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

It is to be here that the appellant Nos.2, 6 and 7 herein died during the pendency of this appeal and their legal representatives are brought on record as appellant Nos.9 to 14; 15 and 16 & 17 respectively.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.689 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, with a prayer for declaring the title of the plaintiff to the schedule property as lawful owner and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the dependents, their men and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and for costs.

4. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.278 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 to 10 approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.689 of 2005, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Adivi Venkata Lakshmamma. She executed a Will on 12.06.1975 bequeathing the same in favour of Adivi Saraswathi in a sound and disposing state of mind and later she died. After the death of Adivi Venkata Lakshmamma, Adivi Saraswathi became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Adivi Saraswathi took loan from State Bank of India, Vijayarai by mortgaging the plaint schedule property. Adivi Saraswathi died intestate on 12.04.2004 leaving behind her, her husband and children. After the death of Saraswathi, her husband and children succeeded the plaint schedule property and they sold the same to plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 13.12.2004 for clearing the loan due to State Bank of India, Vijayarai and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff. Since the date of the said purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

7. The 3^rd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

The plaint schedule property was leased out to 1^st defendant and 8^th defendant and others for 99 years by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 24.08.1967 with such terms and conditions as mentioned therein. The tenants have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since then by way of getting bore-well dug. The alienation of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff is contrary to the provisions of Section 15(1) of A.P.(A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956. Defendant Nos.3 and 5 are the sons of 1^st defendant. Defendant Nos.7, 10 and 11 are the sons of some of the original tenants as detailed in it. The scribe of the above registered leased deed, dated 24.08.1967 by name Adivi Soma Sundara Rao is the son of Adivi Venkata Lakshmamma and he is a close associate of the plaintiff. They colluded together and brought the document of plaint