JUDGMENT :

R.M.T. Teekaa Raman, J.

1. The defeated defendants are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and bar injunction against the appellants.

3. The case of the plaintiffs are that:-

(i) the suit property bearing S. No. 56/1 and Patta No. 420, his father had three brothers, viz., (1) Maichari Nayakar (2) Kardi Nayakar and (3) Chenraya Naicker and his father is Culigan @ Chennappa Naidu and the suit property was enjoyed by his father Coligan and by way of a family arrangement, the suit property by a oral family arrangement was conveyed to the plaintiff who is the only son to his father 30 years prior to this suit and that Ex. A1 is the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff in 1974 and the patta number was given as 11'.

(ii) The plaintiff's father was paying kist marked as Exs. A2 to A6 and the kist receipt Exs. A7 to A28 would evidence his payment. The plaintiff had mortgaged the suit property which was redeemed under Ex. 29. Ex. A3 is the Mortgage Deed in favour of Salamarthu Pattu Co-operative Society and Ex. 32 is the joint patta issued to the plaintiff along with the first defendant. Against this issue of joint patta, the plaintiff had filed an appeal to Revenue District Officer who transferred to the District Revenue Officer issued to the plaintiff and notice marked as Ex. A31 calling upon him to attend the enquiry. Hence, filed this suit.

4. The case of the defendant as could be seen from the written statement and the witnesses of the defendants side are to the effect that

(i) the suit property no doubt belonged to the joint family comprising the father of the defendant, father of the plaintiff and others

(ii) but defendant's case was that under a oral partition which took place 70 years ago, the suit property went to the share of the defendant's father and after the demise of his father, the suit property devolved upon the defendant's mother, brother and the defendant himself and by way of Ex. B2, partition deed dated 25.06.1952, the suit property fell to the share of the defendant and

(iii) to prove the same, the defendant has examined as D.W. 3, one Govinda Rao, the attestor of Ex. B2.

(iv) Ex. Bl is the "A" Registry of the suit property of the year 1937 which stands in the name of the defendant's father marked as Ex. B3 dated 12.08.1986, a patta issued to the defendant (Patta No. 57) with regard to the suit property and patta issued in favour of the defendant with regard to other properties marked as Ex. B4.

(v) It is the definite case of the defendant that after Ex. B3, the plaintiff obtain a joint patta Ex. A32, along with the defendant.

(vi) The defendant relied upon Ex. Bl, a public document to prove that the suit property was allotted to the defendant's father under the oral partition between the brother 70 years back.

(vii) The defendant also raised a contention that the suit has to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary party namely the sons and daughter of the plaintiff who also admittedly have a right in the suit property.

5. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs are examined as P.W. 1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs. A1 and A34. On the side of the defendants, the defendants are examined as D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 and marked Exs. B1 to B6.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence let in, the Trial Court has observed that Exs. A29 and Ex. A30 Mortgage Deed and Redemption of Mortgage Deed by the plaintiff are not binding upon the defendant and there is a clear variation between the UDR patta issued in the year 1986, under Ex. B3 and Ex. A2 issued in the year 1982 and Revenue proceedings also not found to be in favour of the plaintiff and non-production of the Patta Passbook regarding possession of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has rejected the case of the plaintiff and hence, the appeal.

7. During the First Appeal, the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court by observing that Exs. A29 and Ex. A30-Mortgage Deed and Redemption of