JUDGMENT : 1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and judgment dated 08.10.2010 in O.S.No.28 of 2004 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore (for short, ‘trial court’). 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments, of the plaint, are as under: (a) The plaint schedule property represents 2/3rd of the entire property. Initially, the 1st defendant's husband purchased the whole property in her name. However, the 2nd defendant managed to obtain a settlement deed from her in his favor on 07.01.1975. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant's elder brother, Bala Subramanyam, filed a partition suit (O.S.No18 of 1981) against defendants 1 and 2, their three sisters, and another tenant in the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gudur. The suit was decreed on 14.02.1983, declaring equal entitlement of the plaintiff, defendants, and the three sisters, and granting a 1/6th share to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 appealed against the decree in A.S.No.492 of 1984 at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but the appeal was dismissed on 13.09.1990. They further appealed in L.P.A.No.9 of 1991, which was also dismissed on 28.03.1994. Meanwhile, the defendants jointly sold 1/3rd of the scheduled property to Y. Ravindranath Reddy on 05.09.1991 for Rs. 1,00,000, referring to the eastern side boundary as their remaining portion based on the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in favor of the 2nd defendant. (b) The plaint further asserts that Bala Subramanyam and his sister Rajeswaramma, the elder brother and sister of the 2nd defendant, respectively, took their 1/3rd share on the western side. The remaining two sharers, Patnam Padmavathamma and the deceased sister's son, Pasupuleti Anasuyamma, took their 1/3rd share on the eastern side through an oral partition. Subsequently, Bala Subramanyam and Rajeswaramma sold their 1/3rd share on the eastern side to the same individuals on 28.10.1992 for Rs. 1,18,000 and delivered possession. The purchasers had been occupying the entire building in the scheduled property since 1971 as tenants of the original owners. Even after the sale of the 1/3rd share to Y. Ravindranath Reddy, they continued as tenants for the 1/3rd portion, operating a hotel named "Woodlands Hotel" there. Thus, the defendants ceased to be in possession of any portion of the scheduled property after selling their 1/3rd share. Even after the sale of the 1/3rd share to Y. Ravindranath Reddy, they continued as tenants for the 1/3rd portion, operating a hotel named "Woodlands Hotel" there. Thus, the defendants ceased to be in possession of any portion of the scheduled property after selling their 1/3rd share. However, V.K. Ali and V.K. Mohiddin remained tenants of the 1/3rd portion and owners of the remaining 2/3rd portion. Subsequently, they also purchased the remaining 1/3rd share from Y. Ravindranath Reddy through an agreement of sale dated 27.07.1997. (c) The plaint further alleges that when the owners were absent in Kerala state, the defendants and their associates forcibly trespassed into the scheduled building and occupied the same around 20.05.1998. They have been in wrongful possession ever since. The owners reported the incident to the police on 09.11.1998, upon their return on 05.11.1998. A criminal case is currently pending against the defendants. Due to the defendants' high-handedness and the inability of the owners to resist, they decided to sell the scheduled property, which adjoins the plaintiff's other properties. The plaintiff agreed to purchase 2/3rd portion to the east of Y. Ravindranath Reddy's 1/3rd portion for Rs. 9,20,000 through a registered sale deed on 25.04.2003. The defendants were informed about the sale and promised to vacate within a year. However, they have failed to fulfill their promise and, for the past three months, have been demanding exorbitant amounts to vacate the property while issuing false notices and making false publications. As a result, the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit. 4. (a) The 2nd defendant has filed a written statement refuting all the allegations made in the plaint. The 1st defendant has adopted the written statement of the 2nd defendant. According to the written statement, the 1st defendant, being the bona fide purchaser of the entire property through a registered sale deed dated 10.01.1936, executed a settlement deed in favor of the 2nd defendant on 07.01.1975 out of love and affection. Since then, the 2nd defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of a portion of the property, measuring 33 ½ ankanams, which is adjacent to Dr.C.R.Reddy's hospital and his lodge called Hotel Seven Hills. The said property holds significant value, and the plaintiff's intention is to acquire the adjacent valuable property by creating nominal documents. Since then, the 2nd defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of a portion of the property, measuring 33 ½ ankanams, which is adjacent to Dr.C.R.Reddy's hospital and his lodge called Hotel Seven Hills. The said property holds significant value, and the plaintiff's intention is to acquire the adjacent valuable property by creating nominal documents. (b) The defendants further contend that when the plaintiff's initial plan failed, he decided to purchase the entire property from the defendants. Consequently, an agreement of sale was entered into on 14.12.2002 between the defendants and the plaintiff for the suit schedule property at a rate of Rs. 80,000/- per ankanam. The plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/-, and it was agreed that the remaining consideration amount would be paid when executing a regular registered sale deed. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants on 15.07.2004 based on the said agreement, containing false allegations, to which the defendants provided a suitable reply on 23.07.2004. (c) The defendants further contend that even though a preliminary decree was passed in favor of Singamsetty Bala Subramanyam by the Senior Civil Judge, he never applied for a final decree or obtained valid possession of the property. In the absence of valid possession due to the failure to obtain a final decree, it raises questions about the valid title held by P.Bala Subramanyam and his sisters over the property. If they allegedly sold the property to third parties without possessing a valid title and possession themselves, no rights would be derived in their favor. Even if the plaintiff entered into a registered transaction with V.K. Mohiddin and V.K. Ali on 25.04.2003, no valid title was transferred to him. Hence, the plaintiff has never acquired valid possession with a valid title over the property since 1936. (d) It is further contended that on 20.05.2004, the plaintiff and his followers, with the assistance of one Franklin and his associates, forcefully dispossessed the defendants and their family members from the property. Subsequently, based on the 2nd defendant's report, the police registered a case (Cr.No.48 of 2004) under sections 143, 448, 323, 427 r/w 34 of IPC against T.P. Franklin and others. They also managed to create a false case (Cr.No.96 of 2004) against the 2nd defendant and two others through the involvement of Bali Sudhkar, aiming to implicate them. Subsequently, based on the 2nd defendant's report, the police registered a case (Cr.No.48 of 2004) under sections 143, 448, 323, 427 r/w 34 of IPC against T.P. Franklin and others. They also managed to create a false case (Cr.No.96 of 2004) against the 2nd defendant and two others through the involvement of Bali Sudhkar, aiming to implicate them. The plaintiff obtained an invalid and irregular document dated 25.04.2023 by suppressing these facts. Furthermore, the vendor of the document does not possess a valid title or possession, and the title and possession that were allegedly transferred to the plaintiff were done symbolically. Therefore, the plaintiff lacks a valid title over the property mentioned in the plaint. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Is the plaintiff entitled for declaration of his title to the eastern 2/3rd portion of the entire building and for possession of the schedule mentioned property and costs of the suit? (2) Have the vendors of V.K.Ali and V.K.Mohiddin perfected their title and possession over the property, they have not acquired legal right over the property, have they not acquired a constructive possession over the properties covered under registered sale deed dated 26.08.92 and 28.10.92? (3) Is Defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser of entire property by registered sale deeds dated 10.1.36? (4) Has Defendant No.1 executed Settlement Deed in favour of Defendant No.2 on 7.1.75? (5) Whether any right devolved upon plaintiff following registered transaction dated 25.4.03? (6) Whether the plaintiff’s vendor has no valid title and possession over the property? (7) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? (8) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A.26. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B.37. 7. After completion of trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the suit was decreed with costs and the 2nd defendant is directed to hand over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this Judgment; otherwise, the plaintiff has to take steps and get the suit schedule property as per law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants/defendants filed the present appeal. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants/defendants filed the present appeal. 8. (i) The counsel for the appellants/defendants argues that the trial court made errors in its findings on issue Nos.3 and 5. It wrongly concluded that the appellant's mother is not the legitimate purchaser of the entire property as stated in the registered sale deed dated 10.01.1936, and that the settlement deed executed in favor of the appellant is invalid. Furthermore, it is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable due to the absence of a final decree that determines the correct share of the parties in O.S.No.18 of 1981. The sale deeds dated 26.08.1992 and 28.10.1992 are alleged to be affected by the doctrine of lis pendens, and consequently, the subsequent sale deeds made by the vendors in favor of the plaintiff are considered invalid. (ii) The counsel for the appellants argues that the trial court erred in not recognizing that the transaction under Ex.B.2 is benami and not binding on the family members. It is claimed that there is no contradictory evidence presented through documentary or oral means, as per the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. (iii) The counsel for the appellants further asserts that there is a lack of documentary evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiff or their vendors, V.K. Ali and V.K. Mohiddin, or defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.18 of 1981 were in constructive possession of the property at any point in time. Apart from oral testimony, there is no documentary proof that the individuals from Kerala were operating a hotel on the property mentioned in Ex.A.13. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that the trial Court correctly appreciated the facts of the case and came to a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Is the trial Court justified in declaring the plaintiff’s title to the eastern 2/3rd share of the plaint schedule property and directing the 2nd defendant to hand over the same to the plaintiff? 2) Is the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? POINT NOs.1 AND 2: 11. 2) Is the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? POINT NOs.1 AND 2: 11. According to the plaintiff, the property mentioned in the plaint, consisting of an MTC building with an area of 635 sq. feet and an AC sheet house with an area of 652 sq. feet, both situated on a 184 sq. yard site, was originally purchased by the 1st defendant's husband in her name. However, the 2nd defendant managed to obtain a settlement deed in his favor on 07.01.1975. On the other hand, the defendants argue that the 1st defendant legitimately purchased the entire property through a registered deed dated 10.01.1936, and out of love and affection, she executed a settlement deed in favor of the 2nd defendant on 07.01.1975. They claim that the 2nd defendant has since been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of an area measuring 33½ ankanams, which is adjacent to Dr. C.R. Reddy's hospital and a lodge called Hotel Seven Hills. 12. Upon a careful examination of the evidence on record, it is evident that the 2nd defendant's brother, Bala Subramanyam, filed a partition suit against the defendants, their three sisters, and another tenant in O.S.No.18 of 1981 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court in Gudur. This suit was decreed on 14.02.1983. The plaintiff relies on Exhibits A.1 and A.2, which are copies of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.18 of 1981 from the Subordinate Judge's Court in Gudur. These exhibits indicate that Singamsetty Bala Subramanyam, the son of the 1st defendant, filed the suit seeking partition of the plaintiff's 7/18th share in the property mentioned in the plaint. The Judgment in Ex.A.1 confirms the relationships mentioned in the plaint, establishing that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are brothers, and the 1st defendant is their mother. The 3rd defendant is Anasuyamma, the 4th defendant is Patnam Padmavathamma (also known as Narayanamma), and the 5th defendant is S. Rajeswaramma, who are the sisters of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff's father, Kannaiah, worked as a Bill Collector at a Ceramic factory and passed away on 06.11.1966. Bala Subramanyam's case in O.S.No.18 of 1981 is that the plaintiff and the defendants (1 to 5) are co-owners and jointly possess the property. The plaintiff's father, Kannaiah, worked as a Bill Collector at a Ceramic factory and passed away on 06.11.1966. Bala Subramanyam's case in O.S.No.18 of 1981 is that the plaintiff and the defendants (1 to 5) are co-owners and jointly possess the property. The plaintiff is claimed to have a 7/18th share, the 2nd defendant has a 7/18th share, and each of the defendants 1, 3 to 5 has a 1/18th share. The 1st defendant's argument in O.S.No.18 of 1981 is that she purchased the vacant site covered by the property in question on 10.01.1936 for Rs.4,400. The contention is that the 2nd defendant influenced the 1st defendant to create a settlement deed in his favor for the suit property, which was the self-acquired property of the plaintiff's father who passed away on 06.11.1966. As a result, the plaintiff is claimed to be not entitled to a 7/18th share. 13. The Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.18 of 1981: i. Whether the plaintiff’s father acquired 30 ankanams of vacant site and constructed on it the house with the funds of joint family consisting of Singamsetty Kannaiah and his sons i.e., the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and kept in the name of the 1st defendant as benami? ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 7/18th share in the suit property and partition of 7/18th share? iii. Whether the plaintiff and his father leased the suit property to 6th defendant-V.K.Ali? iv. To what relief? 14. Considering the material on record, the Subordinate Judge Court, Gudur, answered the 1st issue by holding that the plaintiff’s father purchased the site of the suit property and constructed the suit property with his own earnings and not with the funds of the joint family and he kept the property under Ex.A.1 in the name of his wife as benami; while answering the 2nd issue, the court has observed that the plaintiff (2nd defendant’s brother Bala Subramanyam herein) is not entitled to 7/18th share; while answering the 3rd issue, the court found that the defendants 1 and 2 leased out the suit property to 6th defendant and not the plaintiff and his father; while answering the 4th issue, the court found that a preliminary decree is passed, directing the partition of the suit property into six equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff. Exs.A.1 and A.2-Judgment and decree shows that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 therein are equally entitled to the suit property, so each of them will get 1/6th share in the property. The 2nd defendant is entitled to 1/6th share of himself and also 1/6th share of his mother i.e., the 1st defendant by virtue of Ex.B.11, the settlement deed executed by his mother in his favour regarding the suit property. 15. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge Court, Gudur, in O.S.No.18 of 1981, the defendants therein (defendants 1 and 2 herein) filed the appeal vide A.S.No.492 of 1984 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 in O.S.No.18 of 1981. A reading of the Judgments shows that this Court agreed with the finding of the lower court that the suit property is the self-acquired property of late Shri Kannaiah and he died intestate in the year 1966. In the said appeal, it is contended by the defendants herein as appellants therein that by virtue of the provisions of the Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988, it is not open to the plaintiff to contend that it is a Benami transaction or that late Sri Kannaiah is the real owner of the property. Section 3, sub-section (1) of the said act says that: no person shall enter into any Benami transaction. Sub-section (2) thereof says that “nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to the purchase of the property in the name to benefit his wife”. This Court observed that the late Kannaiah was receiving the rent and was utilizing it for the construction of the house and that he was paying the taxes to the municipality on the said house and also indicate that he did not purchase the property for the benefit of his wife. Therefore, the presumption under section 3(2) of the act has been rebutted and so, the lower court is justified in coming to a conclusion that the property was not purchased by late Shri Kannaiah for the benefit of his wife. Therefore, section 3(2) of the act is also not helpful to the defendants 1 and 2. 16. This Court further observed that the 1st defendant has no right to settle the entire property on the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant does not become the owner of the entire suit property. 17. Therefore, section 3(2) of the act is also not helpful to the defendants 1 and 2. 16. This Court further observed that the 1st defendant has no right to settle the entire property on the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant does not become the owner of the entire suit property. 17. Being not satisfied with the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.492 of 1984 vide Exs.A.3 and A.4, passed by this Court, the appellants i.e., the defendants in the suit, preferred L.P.A.No.9 of 1991 before this Court under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders in A.S.No.492 of 1984 on the file of the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. 18. A reading of the judgment and decree dated 28th day of March, 1994 in L.P.A.No.9 of 1991 vide Exs.A.5 and A.6, shows that the appellants/defendants also raised the same contentions and this Court observed that the evidence on record was appreciated by the trial Court as well as the learned single Judge and it was found as a question of fact that the burden of rebutting the presumption is discharged by the plaintiff. This being a finding of the fact arrived at on consideration of the evidence needs no interference in this appeal. 19. After reading of the Exs.A.1 to A.6, this Court views that the defendants 1 and 2 herein as the defendants in O.S.No.28 of 2004 raised the same contentions in both the proceedings. In the suit, the trial court has framed the following issues: xxxxxxxx 3) Is defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser of entire property by registered sale deeds dated 10.01.1936? 4) Has the defendant No.1 executed settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 7.1.75? xxxxxx 20. This Court views that the trial Court is not supposed to have framed such issues as on the said question of facts raised by the defendants herein. Already, the Subordinate Judge Court, Gudur in O.S.No.18 of 1981 has passed the Judgment and decree. The said Judgment and decree are confirmed by the High Court as referred to above. As such, the defendants 1 and 2 are not supposed to let in same evidence in the Court as the Judgment in O.S.No.18 of 1981 has attained finality. 21. Already, the Subordinate Judge Court, Gudur in O.S.No.18 of 1981 has passed the Judgment and decree. The said Judgment and decree are confirmed by the High Court as referred to above. As such, the defendants 1 and 2 are not supposed to let in same evidence in the Court as the Judgment in O.S.No.18 of 1981 has attained finality. 21. It is the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants 1 and 2 herein jointly sold away 1/3rd portion of the schedule mentioned property to Y.Ravindranath Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 05.09.1991 under the original of Ex.A.7 for a valid consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- describing the eastern side boundary as their remaining portion of the house bearing on the settlement deed executed by the 1stdefendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. 22. As seen from the record by the time of Ex.A.7 transaction, this Court confirmed the decree and Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.18 of 1981 on 13.11.1990. In this regard, the 2nd defendant who is examined as DW.1 in this suit admitted that after the partition suit was decreed, he sold 1/3rd share in favour of Y.Ravindranath Reddy in respect of the house property under Ex.A.7-sale deed. The contents of the Ex.A.7-sale deed do not disclose the disposal of the appeal suit vide A.S.No.492 of 1984 by this Court as on the date of sale transaction. Ex.A.7-sale deed shows that the property covered under it was also delivered to Y.Ravindranath Reddy. Ex.A.7 establishes that the 2nd defendant sold 1/3rd share in respect of the house property describing the eastern side boundary as their remaining portion of the house basing on the settlement deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant. The said document clearly establishes that 1/3rd share of the property fell to the share of 2nd defendant was sold by him in favour of Y.Ravindranath Reddy with specific boundaries. Having sold away 1/3rd share of the property, it can be said that 2nd defendant had no property as he already sold the property that fell to his share by virtue of the Judgment passed by this Court. 23. The 2nd defendant has failed to explain how the Ex.A.7 sale deed executed by him is not binding on him. Nothing on the record to suggest that he questioned Ex.A.7 transaction in the court of law and succeeded. 24. 23. The 2nd defendant has failed to explain how the Ex.A.7 sale deed executed by him is not binding on him. Nothing on the record to suggest that he questioned Ex.A.7 transaction in the court of law and succeeded. 24. It is evident from the record that the elder brother of the 2nd defendant i.e., Bala Subramanyam who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.18 of 1981 and his sisters Rajeswaramma took her 1/3rd share on the western side and the remaining two shares, Patnam Parvathamma and the son of the deceased sister by name Pasupuleti Anasuyamma took their 1/3rd share on the east in the remaining property in an oral partition. Though there is no evidence before the Court to show the oral partition of the property, subsequent to the disposal of the appeal, but 2nd defendant failed to explain as to how he sold his 1/3rd share of the property with specific boundaries and delivered the same to his vendors. 25. It is the plaintiff’s case that Bala Subramanyam and Rajeswaramma sold away their 1/3rd share on the western side on 26.08.1992 to V.K.Mohiddin and V.K.Ali for the valid consideration of Rs.1,18,000/-. To establish the said transaction, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.8-registered sale deed executed by Bala Subramanyam and Rajeswaramma. It is also the plaintiff’s further case that Padmavathamma and Anasuyamma’s son Janardhanaiah sold their 1/3rd share on the eastern side on 28.10.1992 to the same persons and delivered the possession of the property for valuable consideration of Rs.1,18,000/-. To establish the said fact, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.9-registered sale deed executed by Padmavathamma and Janardhanaiah in favour of V.K.Mohiddin and V.K.Ali. The said document clearly goes to show that the plaintiff in O.S.No.18 of 1981, his sister in law and his sister’s son sold the remaining 2/3rd share of the property to V.K.Mohiddin and V.K.Ali, the parties to O.S.No.18 of 1981 sold away the entire schedule property. 26. It is the plaintiff’s contention that on 25.04.2003, he purchased 2/3rd portion to the east of Y.Ravindranath Reddy’s 1/3rd portion for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,20,000/- through a registered sale deed from V.K.Mohiddin and V.K.Ali. To establish the said fact, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.10. Ex.A.10 supports the plaintiff’s case. 26. It is the plaintiff’s contention that on 25.04.2003, he purchased 2/3rd portion to the east of Y.Ravindranath Reddy’s 1/3rd portion for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,20,000/- through a registered sale deed from V.K.Mohiddin and V.K.Ali. To establish the said fact, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.10. Ex.A.10 supports the plaintiff’s case. It is evident from the record that the plaintiff has purchased the 2/3rd share of the suit schedule property from the vendors of the Bala Subramanyam, Singamsetty Rajeswaramma, Patnam Padmavathamma and P.Janardhanaiah covered under Exs.A.8 and A.9 by virtue of original of Ex.A.10-registered sale deed. DW.1 admitted in cross examination that the plaintiff has purchased the property sold by his brothers and sister to V.K.Mohiddin and V.K.Ali. From the said admission of DW.1, it can be hold that the plaintiff had purchased the 2/3rd share of the property and 1/3rd share of the property was purchased by Y.Ravindranath Reddy from 2nd defendant. Thus, the defendants 1 and 2 have no right over the schedule property. 27. The plaintiff claims that after the defendants sold their 1/3rd share of the property to Y. Ravindranath Reddy, V.K. Mohiddin and V.K. Ali continued to occupy the property as tenants for the 1/3rd portion and as owners for the remaining 2/3rd portion. The plaintiff further alleges that when the owners were absent in Kerala, the defendants and their associates forcefully trespassed onto the property and took possession. A police report was filed on 09.11.1985, and a criminal case is said to be pending against the defendants. The plaintiff acknowledges that they were not in possession of the 2/3rd share of the property, and according to them, the defendants unlawfully occupied the property. The defendants have placed several documents to establish their possession of the property. The plaintiff also acknowledges that the defendants have been in possession of the property. It is evident from the records that the plaintiff purchased a 2/3rd share of the property from the brothers and sisters of the 2nd defendant. The defendants have failed to provide an explanation regarding how they acquired rights over the 2/3rd share of the property. It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s vendors have got a 2/3rd share in the whole property. 28. The defendants have failed to provide an explanation regarding how they acquired rights over the 2/3rd share of the property. It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s vendors have got a 2/3rd share in the whole property. 28. The main contention of the defendants 1 and 2 is that even after passing of the decree in O.S.No.18 of 1981, the other co-owners did not take possession of the property, and no final decree was passed. The 2nd defendant claims to have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property since 1975. Neither party argues that a final decree was passed following the preliminary decree. The 2nd defendant must explain when the property covered under Ex.A.7 was not separated from the other property and how they were able to transfer the property mentioned in Ex.A.7 to their vendors without passing the final decree. The defendants must also clarify how they described the eastern side boundary as the remaining portion of the house without partition and passing of final decree. These factors establish that the remaining 2/3rd share of the property was sold by the brothers and sisters of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff provides an explanation to counter the defendants' claim. According to the plaintiff, V.K. Mohiddin and V.K. Ali were in occupation of the property as tenants of the original owners since 1977. Even after selling the 1/3rd share of property to Y. Ravindranath Reddy, they continued to be his tenants for that portion. They operated a hotel called "Wood Lands Hotel" on the premises. This claim is supported by the admission of DW.1 in his testimony. DW.1 explicitly stated during cross-examination that PW.1 (the plaintiff) purchased the property from the hoteliers who had purchased it from the brothers and sisters of the 2nd defendant. The hoteliers remained as owners from the date of purchase in August and October 1992 until the 2nd defendant trespassed and occupied the premises in May 1998. In O.S.No.18 of 1981, the plaintiff's contention was that the 6th defendant (V.K. Ali) was a tenant in possession of the schedule property. The court, while addressing the 3rd issue, found that the defendants 1 and 2 had leased the property to the 6th defendant. It supports the plaintiff's argument that the property sold to the 6th defendant had been in his possession as a tenant, and they were operating a hotel there. The court, while addressing the 3rd issue, found that the defendants 1 and 2 had leased the property to the 6th defendant. It supports the plaintiff's argument that the property sold to the 6th defendant had been in his possession as a tenant, and they were operating a hotel there. Although the record confirms these facts, DW.1 has given incorrect information during cross-examination, denying the suggestion that V.K. Ali was the 6th defendant in O.S.No.18 of 1981 and that he filed a written statement and sold 2/6th share in the property under Ex.A.7. DW.1's testimony indicates that he has given incorrect evidence regarding the established/ admitted facts of the case. Regarding the plaintiff's claim of a criminal case being filed against them, DW.1 admitted that V.K. Mohiddin and V.K. Ali lodged a complaint against the plaintiff with the Gudur Police in November 2000. The police investigated the matter, filed a charge sheet against the defendant, and the case ended in acquittal. The evidence supports the conclusion that the defendants forcibly trespassed onto the schedule building and took possession. The evidence on record shows that the plaintiff's vendors and sisters were unable to resist the defendants, leading them to sell their share in the property to the plaintiff, who owned adjacent properties. Subsequently, on 25.02.2003, the plaintiff purchased the 2/3rd portion located to the east of Y. Ravindranath Reddy's property. 29. After careful reading of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff established that he has got 2/3rd share in the entire property and it is in the possession of the defendants and so, he established his right to get possession of the schedule property. 30. The defendants' counsel argues that PW.1 stated in cross-examination that in the year 2002, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff for the purchase of 30 Ankanams of property, including the schedule property, at a cost of Rs. 80,000/- per Ankanam. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff initiated proceedings to enforce the agreement. Neither the plaintiff nor defendants 1 and 2 have explained the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement. Based on the said evidence in cross examination without support of documentary evidence regarding the agreement, this Court cannot disregard the previous judgment passed by this Court. Neither the plaintiff nor defendants 1 and 2 have explained the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement. Based on the said evidence in cross examination without support of documentary evidence regarding the agreement, this Court cannot disregard the previous judgment passed by this Court. Since the record indicates that defendants 1 and 2 have rights over the 1/3rd share of the property, it is unclear why the plaintiff entered into the agreement of sale for entire property. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to give significant weight to this submission in deciding the disputed matter. 31. The defendants also contend that the present suit was dismissed for default. PW.1 filed an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and sought a final decree. Ex.B.1 is a certified copy of I.A.No.289 of 2006. However, PW.1 has not provided any documents to demonstrate that Y. Ravindranath Reddy was in possession of the property at the time of filing I.A. Since this suit does not pertain to the possession of the property purchased by Y. Ravindranath Reddy, this Court is not inclined to place significant reliance on this argument. 32. The 2nd defendant's case is that they sold the schedule property to Y. Ravindranath Reddy. The sale deed and the documents relied upon by the 2nd defendant establish the delivery of the property to Y. Ravindranath Reddy. However, it is unclear from the record whether Y. Ravindranath Reddy initiated proceedings to take possession of the property purchased from the 1st defendant. Since the dispute does not concern the 1/3rd share of the property sold by the 2nd defendant, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the contentions raised by the 1st defendant regarding the 1/3rd share of the property and the evidence produced regarding the sale of that portion. 33. The defendants have raised submissions regarding the market values of the property as shown in Ex.A.13. However, since the 2nd defendant has admitted the sale transaction in favor of Y.Ravindranath Reddy and has not disputed the sale transaction executed by the 2nd defendant's brother and sisters in favor of the vendor, the valuation of the properties is not highly relevant to decide the contentions in this case. 34. However, since the 2nd defendant has admitted the sale transaction in favor of Y.Ravindranath Reddy and has not disputed the sale transaction executed by the 2nd defendant's brother and sisters in favor of the vendor, the valuation of the properties is not highly relevant to decide the contentions in this case. 34. The defendants also contend that according to Ex.A.13 sale deed, the schedule property is an extent of 23 Ankanams out of a total extent of 30 Ankanams, while the plaintiff claims only 20 Ankanams. The evidence on record establishes that the 2nd defendant has a 1/3rd share in the properties, and the other sharers have a 2/3rd share in the properties. Even if the sale deeds executed by them reflect a different extent of land, those sale deeds bind only in respect of the share that the brother and sisters of the 2nd defendant possessed. Furthermore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for only the 2/3rd share of the schedule property, not more. It is noted that before the trial court, the defendants raised an objection that the present suit is not maintainable without obtaining valid physical possession, even without the passing of the final decree. In support of the said contention, the defendants relied on the decision between Income tax officer, Calicut Vs. Smt.N.K.Saradha Thampatti, AIR 1991 SP 2035, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, "preliminary decree for partition does not amount to partition as contemplated by the act. Actually physical division of the properties pursuant to final decree is essential.” 35. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is argued that the non-passing of a final decree in O.S.No.18 of 1981 does not affect the plaintiff's right to obtain possession of their share of the property. It is contended that there is no need for a final decree because the remaining shareholders were not interested in taking separate possession of their shares, and all parties agreed to sell their respective shares as per their agreement. Consequently, they sold the remaining 4/6th share to the tenant themselves, as covered under Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15. The plaintiff relied on the decision between Tara Pada Vs. Consequently, they sold the remaining 4/6th share to the tenant themselves, as covered under Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15. The plaintiff relied on the decision between Tara Pada Vs. ShyamaPada, AIR 1952 Calcutta 579, wherein the High Court of Calcutta held that: Although, therefore, the accepted proposition is that once a preliminary decree is passed by the Court, it is open to the parties to come up subsequently with prayer to take further steps for the passing of a final decree, there is an important exception to the general rule. On proof of changed circumstances, as in the present case, when it is found that there is no necessity or room for the application of the general rule, as the parties had already taken advantage of the directions contained in the preliminary decree, the exception to the general rule comes into play. The Court cannot and would not in equity to take any further steps. 36. From the record, it is evident that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title to the eastern 2/3rd portion of the building and for possession of the schedule property. It is noted that the document executed by the 2nd defendant in favor of Y.Ravindranath Reddy, as per Ex.A.7, shows that the 1/3rd portion of the building with specific boundaries was transferred. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.A.7 that the 2/3rd portion on the eastern side of the building belongs to them. Due to the sale of the 1/3rd share by the 2nd defendant to Y. Ravindranath Reddy with specific boundaries, the 2nd defendant lost the right to possession of the property, and he is not supposed to introduce evidence contrary to the contents of the sale deed executed in favor of Y. Ravindranath Reddy. 37. Upon careful consideration, I agree with the trial court's proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no compelling reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion. The findings of the trial court are correct, and the appellants/defendants have failed to provide justifiable reasons to take different view. I concur with the trial court's conclusion. Therefore, the points are decided in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. 38. Based on the preceding discussion, there is no need for any intervention in the view taken by the trial court. This appeal is unsuccessful and is hereby dismissed. The contested decree and judgment passed by the trial court are upheld. I concur with the trial court's conclusion. Therefore, the points are decided in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. 38. Based on the preceding discussion, there is no need for any intervention in the view taken by the trial court. This appeal is unsuccessful and is hereby dismissed. The contested decree and judgment passed by the trial court are upheld. In case there are difficulties in demarcating the 1/3rd share of the property with reference to the document Ex.A.7 due to changes in the existing physical features, the plaintiff can seek remedies to separate the 2/3rd share of the property in accordance with the law by filing an appropriate application before the Execution Court. In such an event, the Execution Court should take all necessary steps to protect the interests of both parties by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to separate the property with the assistance of a surveyor. 39. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs, confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.28 of 2004, dated 08.10.2010, by the learned III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore. The 2nd defendant is directed to hand over the 2/3rd share of the schedule property within two months from the date of this judgment. If the 2nd defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to take steps to obtain the delivery of the 2/3rd share of schedule property through the appropriate legal procedures by filing a proper application before the Trial Court. 40. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.