The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Second Appeal No.341 of 2011 Date: 16-12-2011 Between: Sri Varala Veliseti Venkatesham ..... Appellant AND Varala Bhoju Bhumaiah and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.D.Ramalinga Swamy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Prabhakar Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following : Order: This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 08-12-2010, in AS.No.1 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 29-12-2005, in O.S.No.72 of 1996 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. I have heard Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.2, and Sri K.Prabhakar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The subject matter of the dispute relates to Ac.7-03 guntas of land in Survey Nos.236 (AA), 236 (AA/1) and 236 (AA/2) of Nemile Village, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. The suit was originally filed by the appellant and his father against respondent No.1 alone. Pending the suit, the appellant’s father, who was plaintiff No.1, died and respondent No.2, who is the daughter of the deceased plaintiff No.1, was brought on record as defendant No.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased through an unregistered document from defendant No.1 and his brother viz., Varala Boju Laxmi Narsaiah, on 26-02-1960, and that, since then, they are in possession of the said property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that through registered sale deeds, dated 22-02- 1989 (Exs.B.29 and B.30), Varala Boju Laxmi Narsaiah, who is the brother of defendant No.1, sold the suit schedule property to them. The plaintiffs have, accordingly, set up title over the suit schedule property under the above- mentioned documents. It is their further pleaded case that, while they are in physical possession of item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties, they are entitled to recover possession of item No.1. Accordingly, they have filed the suit for declaration of title land recovery of possession of item No.1 and for permanent injunction regarding item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 resisted the suit. It is his pleaded case that his brother had no right to sell the suit schedule property as he filed O.S.No.66 of 1974 and obtained preliminary decree for partition of the entire family properties including the suit schedule property. The preliminary decree was marked as Ex.B.2. Defendant No.1 also denied the plea of possession by the plaintiffs. On the basis of the rival pleas, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration: “Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit lands bearing Survey No.236/AA, 236/AA/1 and 236/AA/2 admeasuring totally Ac.7-03 guntas wet and dry lands situated at Nemila Village, Mandal Rajapet ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit lands ? 3. Whether the Court fee paid is correct and whether the Court fee should have been paid under Section 26 (a) of A.P.C.F.Act as contended by the defendant ? 4. To what relief ? Additional issues: 1. Whether the second plaintiff and defendant No.2 have perfected title over the suit land in Survey No.236/AA to an extent of Ac.3-20 guntas by virtue of adverse possession ? 2. Whether the second plaintiff and the defendant No.2 are entitled to be declared as owners and title holders of the suit Survey No.236/AA ? 3. Whether the suit is under valued ?” After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the Suit on 29-11-2005. In A.S.No.1 of 2006, filed by the sole plaintiff, the lower appellate Court confirmed the said decree and judgment, by dismissing the Appeal, on 08-12-2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. At the hearing, Sri D.Ramalingaswamy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, invited this Court’s attention to the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court wherein it is held that, under Exs.B.29 and B.30, the plaintiffs are entitled to get half share in the suit schedule land, which is the subject matter of preliminary decree in OS.No.66 of 1974. The lower appellate Court also held that, the plaintiffs have become co-owners to defendant No.1 as they have purchased the share of his brother, and as such, no injunction can be granted against the co-owner. The learned Counsel urged that, in view of these findings, his client may be given liberty to participate in/initiate the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.66 of 1974. He also submitted that his client’s rights under final decree proceedings may be permitted to be worked out on the basis of the title that came to be vested in him by Exs.B.29 and 30 to the extent of the share of the brother of defendant No.1 i.e., Varala Boju Lakshmi Narsaiah. The learned Counsel for defendant No.1 has not disputed the fact that the plaintiff is entitled to work out his rights in the final decree proceedings with reference to the share of the said Varala Boju Lakshmi Narsaiah, the plaintiff’s vendor. The effect of the findings of the lower appellate Court referred to above is that the plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of Varala Boju Laxmi Narsaiah, who executed the two sale deeds (Exs.B.29 and B.30) in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is appropriate that the plaintiff and his sister i.e., defendant No.2 in the suit are permitted to initiate/participate in the final decree proceedings and claim their rights on the basis of the two registered sale deeds i.e., Exs.B.29 and B.30 executed by Varala Boju Laxmi Narsaiah as if they have stepped into the shoes of the said person. Subject to the above observations, the judgments under appeal are confirmed and the Second Appeal is disposed of. As a sequel, SAMP.Nos.846 and 847 of 2011, filed by the appellant for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th December, 2011 LUR