IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right acquired by a child in the coparcenary by birth is a vested right and is protected under Section 12(b) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act.

JUDGMENT

M.LAXMAN, J. - This Court intends to dispose of both the appeals by way of this common judgment since the subject matter in both the appeals is one and the same.

2. Both appeals are arising out of a common judgment and decree dtd. 13/10/2016 in A.S.No.33 of 2008 and A.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial (lower appellate Court), wherein and whereby the common judgment dtd. 31/7/2007 in O.S.Nos.987 and 854 of 2005 by the Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial (trial Court), was reversed.

3. The appellant in both these appeals filed O.S.No.987 of 2005 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Respondent No.1 in both these appeals filed O.S.No.854 of 2005 for simplicitor injunction. The trial Court decreed O.S.No.987 of 2005 and dismissed O.S.No.854 of 2005 by its common judgment. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 preferred A.S.Nos.33 of 2008 and 4 of 2009 before the lower appellate Court. Both the appeals were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present two appeals are filed.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were referred in O.S. No.987 of 2005. Any reference of pleadings of the plaintiff includes his plaint and written statement pleadings. Similarly, the pleadings of defendant include his pleadings in written statement and plaint.

5. The sum and substance of case of the plaintiff is that originally, the suit lands belonged to Kandula Laxmaiah and he died leaving behind Raju, Pocham, and Ramaiah. The plaintiff and 2nd defendant are the sons of Pocham. Ramaiah was issueless. The 2nd defendant went in adoption to Ramaiah. The plaintiff claimed title to the entire extent of land fell to the share of Pocham i.e., an extent of land admeasuring Ac.2-37 gts., in Sy.No.99, situated at Mulkalla village of Mancherial Mandal. The present suit is concerned to the extent of Ac.1-18 gts., (hereinafter called "suit property"?). According to him, he became the absolute owner of the entire land to an extent of Ac.2-37 gts., after death of Pocham being the only son as the 2nd defendant went in adoption. The 2nd defendant behind his back, obtained mutation proceedings in his name in respect of the suit land and sold out the same in favour of 1st defendant through a registered sale deed document No.1932 of 1999 claiming title and possession over the suit land. Then, he lodged objection to the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of mutation entries and thereafter, when no action is taken by Mandal Revenue Officer, the present suit has been filed.

6. The short case of the defendants is that they denied the adoption of defendant No.2 by Kandula Ramaiah. They also denied the exclusive right of the plaintiff over entire extent of land i.e., Ac.2-37 gts., in Sy.No.99 including the suit land. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has already sold out an extent of Ac.0-33 3/4 gts., to one Mohammed Saleem vide registered sale deed document No.1519 of 1995. The plaintiff has got only Ac.0-24 gts., which is the remaining land fell to his share. The plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit land. The defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of the suit land, and therefore, the defendants are entitled to protect their possession. On the above pleadings, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the primary Court framed the following issues:

"Issues in O.S. No.987 of 2005: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land bearing No.99/A/3, admeasuring Ac.1-18 gts., situated at Mulkalla village of Mancherial Mandal and that whether he is entitled to declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that the sale deed No.1932 of 1999 dt.13.07.1999 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Mancherial as null and void?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property? 5. To what relief? Issues in O.S. No.854 of 2005: 1. Wheth