JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

Original plaintiff in O.S.No.355 of 1995 was Dr. Mikkilineni Venkateswara Rao. During pendency of the suit before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada he died. His wife and children were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. The present appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. is filed by the plaintiffs impugning the judgment dated 26.10.2009 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.355 of 1995. The sole defendant in the suit is the sole respondent herein.

2. Meticulous and elaborate arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellants by Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel. For respondent, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, the learned counsel submitted effective reply arguments.

3. A brief note of respective contentions is filed by both sides. Precedent is cited by both sides.

4. The original plaintiff Dr. Mikkilineni Venkateswara Rao is brother-in-law of Sri Thummala Chittaranjandas. The defendant in the suit Sri Thummala Rambabu is the son of Sri Thummala Chittaranjandas. Thus, both parties are closely related to each other. As a matter of fact, it has never been disputed by both sides that under a registered sale deed dated 02.07.1963 the original plaintiff purchased 800 square yards of vacant site in RS.No.914 of Patamata Village. The original plaintiff lived in India till December 1981. It was during December 1981 he left India for Algeria and lived there till March 1987. On his return he was staying at Hyderabad till his death. On 01.12.1993 the original plaintiff had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant whereunder he sold 400 square yards out of his 800 square yards of site and delivered possession of the same to the defendant. The certified copy of the said sale deed was exhibited before the trial Court as per Ex.B.132. The dispute between the parties has arisen by virtue of another registered sale deed dated 31.08.1994 for the remaining extent of 400 square yards. The registration extract of the said sale deed was exhibited by original plaintiff as per Ex.A.4. The prayer in the suit reads as below:

“Hence, the plaintiff prays that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant:

“(a) for the declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and that the sale deed dated 31-8-1994 under document No.4740/1994 of the office of the sub-Registrar, Vijayawada said to be executed in favour of the defendant by the so called power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property is null and void, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff;

(b) for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant to the plaintiff;

(c) for future damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for his unauthorised occupation of the plaint schedule property from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of the said property;

(d) for the costs of the suit; and

(e) pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. In the plaint it is stated that the defendant was pursuing his studies in Vijayawada and at the request of his father the original plaintiff permitted the defendant to stay in the house that was there in a part of 800 square yards of site that was owned by the plaintiff. There were tenants on the said property. The original plaintiff instructed the defendant to collect rent periodically and account for the same to the original plaintiff. He did not do so between 1981 and 1987. After return from Algeria the original plaintiff questioned the defendant about his failure to account for the rents, but he dodged the issue. In May 1995 the original plaintiff had come to know that two months prior to that the defendant got all the tenants vacated and had trespassed into the entire property. The original plainti