JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and judgment dated 08.10.2010 in O.S.No.28 of 2004 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore (for short, ‘trial court’).

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments, of the plaint, are as under:

(a) The plaint schedule property represents 2/3rd of the entire property. Initially, the 1st defendant's husband purchased the whole property in her name. However, the 2nd defendant managed to obtain a settlement deed from her in his favor on 07.01.1975. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant's elder brother, Bala Subramanyam, filed a partition suit (O.S.No18 of 1981) against defendants 1 and 2, their three sisters, and another tenant in the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gudur. The suit was decreed on 14.02.1983, declaring equal entitlement of the plaintiff, defendants, and the three sisters, and granting a 1/6th share to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 appealed against the decree in A.S.No.492 of 1984 at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but the appeal was dismissed on 13.09.1990. They further appealed in L.P.A.No.9 of 1991, which was also dismissed on 28.03.1994. Meanwhile, the defendants jointly sold 1/3rd of the scheduled property to Y. Ravindranath Reddy on 05.09.1991 for Rs. 1,00,000, referring to the eastern side boundary as their remaining portion based on the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in favor of the 2nd defendant.

(b) The plaint further asserts that Bala Subramanyam and his sister Rajeswaramma, the elder brother and sister of the 2nd defendant, respectively, took their 1/3rd share on the western side. The remaining two sharers, Patnam Padmavathamma and the deceased sister's son, Pasupuleti Anasuyamma, took their 1/3rd share on the eastern side through an oral partition. Subsequently, Bala Subramanyam and Rajeswaramma sold their 1/3rd share on the eastern side to the same individuals on 28.10.1992 for Rs. 1,18,000 and delivered possession. The purchasers had been occupying the entire building in the scheduled property since 1971 as tenants of the original owners. Even after the sale of the 1/3rd share to Y. Ravindranath Reddy, they continued as tenants for the 1/3rd portion, operating a hotel named "Woodlands Hotel" there. Thus, the defendants ceased to be in possession of any portion of the scheduled property after selling their 1/3rd share. However, V.K. Ali and V.K. Mohiddin remained tenants of the 1/3rd portion and owners of the remaining 2/3rd portion. Subsequently, they also purchased the remaining 1/3rd share from Y. Ravindranath Reddy through an agreement of sale dated 27.07.1997.

(c) The plaint further alleges that when the owners were absent in Kerala state, the defendants and their associates forcibly trespassed into the scheduled building and occupied the same around 20.05.1998. They have been in wrongful possession ever since. The owners reported the incident to the police on 09.11.1998, upon their return on 05.11.1998. A criminal case is currently pending against the defendants. Due to the defendants' high-handedness and the inability of the owners to resist, they decided to sell the scheduled property, which adjoins the plaintiff's other properties. The plaintiff agreed to purchase 2/3rd portion to the east of Y. Ravindranath Reddy's 1/3rd portion for Rs. 9,20,000 through a registered sale deed on 25.04.2003. The defendants were informed about the sale and promised to vacate within a year. However, they have failed to fulfill their promise and, for the past three months, have been demanding exorbitant amounts to vacate the property while issuing false notices and making false publications. As a result, the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit.

4. (a) The 2nd defendant has filed a written statement refuting all the allegations made in the plaint. The 1st defendant ha