JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant - appellant - plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009 in A.S.No.9 of 2005 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Luxettipet confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2005 in O.S.No.58 of 1997 by the Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-10 guntas in Survey No.222/AA situated at Chinthapalli Village. The defendant No.1 was the brother of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 was the wife of defendant No.1, the defendant No.3 was the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 was the mother of original pattedar Medishetti Rajalingu.

4. The contention of the plaintiff was that originally an extent of Ac.2-20 guntas in Survey No.222 was purchased by defendant No.3 from the original pattedar Medishetti Rajalingu in the year 1965. In the family partition, the plaintiff got the suit land of Ac.1-10 guntas out of Ac.2-20 guntas towards his share and he was in possession of the suit land by way of cultivation. The patta of the land was standing in the name of the original pattedar. The defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.4 got a registered sale deed in the name of defendant No.2. The defendants 1 and 2 were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land without any manner of right. The defendants 3 and 4 were made as parties since they were necessary parties, though no relief was claimed against them.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a common written statement contending that Ac.2-20 guntas in Survey No.222 of Chinthapalli was given to defendant No.3 for cultivation on batai by the original pattedar Medishetti Rajalingu during his life time. The said pattedar died 20 years ago leaving behind his old mother as his legal heir. As such, the mother of the pattedar by name Medishetti Laxmakka succeeded to the suit schedule property. Subsequently, in the year 1996, a panchayat was held in which it was decided that defendant No.3 should purchase the land from the pattedar Medishetti Laxmakka and should take the legal possession from her. On measurement, the land was found to be Ac.2-29 guntas in Survey No.222 and the panchayat elders decided to pay a consideration of Rs.81,800/- to the pattedar Medishetti Laxmakka. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 were not prepared to purchase the land. As such, the defendant No.1 came forward and purchased the same on 30.11.1996 and got a registered sale deed in favor of his wife, defendant No.2. Since then, they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Since the date of purchase by defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 were not in good terms with them. Even after the purchase of the suit land by defendants 1 and 2, they managed to get the name of the plaintiff entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff was not entitled for declaration of title or the consequential relief of injunction and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement submitting that he purchased the land of Ac.2-20 guntas in Survey No.222 of Chinthapalli Village from the original pattedar Medishetti Rajalingu on 22.09.1965 for a consideration of Rs.1,750/- through a simple sale deed and since the date of purchase, he was in possession of the same. The defendant No.3 partitioned the suit land among his sons, wherein the plaintiff was given Ac.1-27 guntas and the defendant No.1 was given Ac.1-27 guntas towards their share and they were in possession of their respective shares. Hence, the plaintiff was entitled for permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows:

i) Whether the suit is grossly undervalued?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for de