THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal filed by defendants 2 and 3 is against the concurrent judgment of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, in A.S.No.56 of 2008, whereby and where under the judgment and decree in O.S.No.29 of 2006 dated 13.10.2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, was confirmed. The respondents 1 and 2 herein (the plaintiffs) instituted the suit for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property i.e., a terraced building bearing D.No.2-39 in R.S.No.352 situated at Devarapalli Village of Kothapeta Mandal. The plaintiffs allege that they purchased the property from the first defendant under registered sale deed 04.02.2003; defendants 2 and 3, who are the uncles of the vendor requested the plaintiffs to permit them to stay for a few days and they were permitted to stay; defendants 2 and 3 filed I.P.No.6 of 2003 against the plaintiffs and other creditors, which was dismissed for default on 25.04.2005 and in spite of the requests made, they failed to vacate the house and hence, the suit. The first defendant remained ex parte. Defendants 2 and 3 (husband and wife) contested the suit. They denied the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and claimed lawful possession. The trial Court framed three issues. Both the sides let in evidence – oral and documentary. On considering the evidence, the trial Court disbelieved defendants 2 and 3 and decreed the suit directing the defendants 2 and 3 to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiffs within a period of two months. Their appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The counsel for the appellants/defendants 2 and 3 would submit that the sale deed executed by first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs is not true and genuine and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. He would nextly contend that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the appellants and therefore, the suit for recovery of possession is misconceived. Both the submissions are devoid of any merit. The trial Court considered the evidence on record and believed Ex.A1, sale deed dated 04.02.2003, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. A finding was also recorded that the first defendant delivered possession to the plaintiffs and that defendants 2 and 3 later occupied the suit schedule property. These are the questions of fact on which findings are recorded, after considering the evidence, by the Courts below. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18th October 2011 RRB