JUDGMENT:

This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in confirming the decree and judgment dated 06-08-2012 in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No. 2 herein is defendant No. 2 before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for declaration of his title over plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of possession and for costs.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and directed defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of plaint scheduler property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of the judgment. Felt aggrieved of the same, unsuccessful defendant No. 1 in the above said suit filed A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

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

6. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 86 of 2009, is as follows:

The plaintiff purchased plaint schedule property from one Alla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Bushaiah, on 04-04-2008 vide document No. 1172/2008 of S.R.O., Koretipadu. The said Alla Venkateswara Rao purchased plaint schedule property and some other property, comes to 1200 square yards, from one Tarumani Subba Rao, S/o Sri Ranga Rao, on 30-06-1979 vide document No. 3856/1979. On 10-12-2008, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from plaint schedule property and grabbed it stating that they are the owners of plaint schedule property. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that one Bikki Venkateswarlu, in collusion with defendant No. 2, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 regarding plaint schedule property on 21-10-2002 vide document No. 7528/2002 by impersonating the said Alla Venkateswara Rao. Defendant No. 2 sold plaint schedule property to defendant No. 1 on 11-05-2006 vide document No. 6328/2006 and physical possession was not delivered to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff questioned Alla Venkateswara Rao who stated that he never executed any sale deed and he never sold plaint schedule property to anybody except to the plaintiff. Since Alla Venkateswara Rao did not execute any document in favour of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 did not get any title over it and he had no right to convey the property to defendant No. 1 and thereby, defendant No. 1 did not get any title over plaint schedule property.

7. Case of defendant No. 1, as seen from her written statement, is as follows:

The plaintiff has neither title nor possession over plaint schedule property and she purchased the same from defendant No. 2 and availed loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited on 11-05-2006. Defendant No. 2 purchased plaint schedule property on 21-10-2002. Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff colluded together and got filed the suit. Defendant No. 1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant No. 2 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in O.S.No. 227 of 2008 and the said suit was decreed on merits. The sale deed of the plaintiff is a fabricated one. Defendant No. 1 mortgaged plaint schedule property with LIC and got mutated her name in municipal records and she has been paying taxes over it.

8. Case of defendant No