COMMON JUDGMENT

These two second appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

These appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, dated 25.7.2006 passed in A.S.No.98 of 1997 and 93 of 1997 dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants confirming the common judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Mummidivaram in O.S.No.87 of 1987 and O.S.No.106 of 1987, dated 20.10.1997 respectively.

Facts in O.S.No.87 of 1987 O.S.No.87 of 1987 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property i.e. Ac.0.0¾ cents out of Ac.0.24 cents in R.S.No.701/7 of Mummidivaram Village contending that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from Koppisetti Veera Raghavulu by the first plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 20.6.1987 for a consideration of Rs.1,500/-. Defendants 3 and 4 remained ex parte while the defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs filed the suit with wrong survey number and obtained ex parte interim order and under the guise of the injunction, they trespassed into a portion of the land in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The vendor of the plaintiffs has no manner of right to execute any sale deed, and that the possession of the property was never delivered to the plaintiffs. It was the case of the defendants that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of Koppisetti Veranna, the father of the second defendant, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 7.7.1955, and that he was in possession of the same till his death. The said Veeranna had two wives by name Suramma and Nagaratnam @ Suramma, who is the mother of second defendant and mother-in-law of first defendant. Veera Raghavulu is the son of Veeranna through his first wife, and that Veeranna had one more son by name Ramakrishna who died in 1974. Koppisetti Satyanarayana-the first son of Veeranna through his second wife is now residing in Dubai. Another daughter Kudupudi Veera Ratnam is residing in Yanam. The second son’s share devolved upon his mother-Nagaratnam. After the death of Veeranna, Koppisetti Nagaratnam along with her children was in possession of the suit schedule property till she left to Komaragipatnam. The southern land of Ac.0.01 ½ cents, which is the part of the suit schedule property was given to these defendants about 14 years back, and that these defendants got constructed a thatched house and residing therein. The house constructed by the first defendant is assessed by the Gram Panchayat. The vendor of the plaintiffs was never in possession of the suit schedule property and the property was never divided and separated.

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?”

Facts in O.S.No.106 of 1987:

The suit in O.S.No.106 of 1987 was filed for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs 1,3 & 4 and defendants 6 and 7 to the suit schedule property and to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to deliver the vacant site of BCEF portion of the plaint plan and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the BCEF portion of the plaint plan. It was their case that the suit schedule property belong to defendants 1 and 2 and the same was encroached by the first defendant. The first plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the second plaintiff; plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the daughters of first plaintiff through Veeranna; defendants 1 and 2 are brothers;