JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants 1 to 3 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 23.02.1996, in O.S. No. 144 of 1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 in the said Suit. 2. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/-from the defendants 1 to 3 as damages towards market value of the property which he lost through process of law or in the alternative directing the defendants 4, 6 to 9 to pay the same with subsequent interest thereon and for costs of the suit. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 144 of 1987, are as under: The plaintiff and the 5th defendant and one Biradavolu Ramachandra Reddy, father of the 4th defendant are brothers. The father of the 1st defendant and the maternal grand father of defendants 2 and 3 by name Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy sold vacant site of 40 ankanams covered by C.A.S. No. 461 of Nellore Bit-I in favour of plaintiff's elder brother Biradavolu Ramachandra Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952 for a sum of Rs. 1200/-. The said property was purchased by Ramachandra Reddy on behalf of joint family. In the partition dated 04.06.1952 the said 40 ankanams of vacant site fell to the share of the plaintiff. Since the date of partition, the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board filed a suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1968 against the plaintiff on the file of the Sub Court, Nellore which was subsequently transferred to the District Court, Nellore and re-numbered as O.S. No. 6 of 1972 for possession of 83 ankanams which includes 40 ankanams of vacant site covered by the registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952. The said suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Nellore on 12.03.1974. The Waqf Board preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 630 of 1974 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 6 of 1972. The said suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Nellore on 12.03.1974. The Waqf Board preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 630 of 1974 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 6 of 1972. The appeal was allowed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 10.11.1978. The plaintiff preferred Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India and the same was not admitted. The Waqf Board filed E.P.17 of 1984 and took possession of the 40 ankanams of site. The plaintiff lost possession of the property and thereby sustained loss. The original vendor Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy died in the month of December, 1953. The defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of late Sundararami Reddy and they are in possession of the estate of late Sundararami Reddy. The plaintiff's brother Ramachandra Reddy also died in 1984 and the 4th defendant is the only son and the entire estate of Ramachandra Reddy is in the hands of the 4th defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for reimbursement of the loss sustained by him on account of his dispossession of 40 ankanams of site from the defendants. 5. The defendants 1 to 3 filed common written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as follows: Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy purchased the property which includes the 40 ankanams under reference from the original owners Mohammed Gouse Saheb and Mohammed Hafeez Saheb for a valuable consideration bonafidely believing that the property belonged to them under registered sale deed dated 10.08.1950. The said sale deed reveals that the vendors got the property from their senior maternal aunt and others under a settlement deed and from the settlement deed the vendors were in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property jointly. After full enquiry and with full knowledge and after perusing the prior title deed of Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy, the said Biradavolu Ramachandra Reddy purchased 40 ankanams under the registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952 and took possession of the same. The defendants 1 to 3 are not the parties to the suit in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 on the file of District Court, Nellore. If the plaintiff lost the litigation and dispossessed from the property, it is only due to the fault of the plaintiff in not prosecuting the case with diligence. The defendants 1 to 3 are not the parties to the suit in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 on the file of District Court, Nellore. If the plaintiff lost the litigation and dispossessed from the property, it is only due to the fault of the plaintiff in not prosecuting the case with diligence. The plaintiff never informed the defendants 1 to 3 about the suit and never tried to take their assistance. The plaintiff might have colluded with the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board and lost the property. The defendants 1 to 3 are not aware of the proceedings and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. 6. The fourth defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the fifth defendant, by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under:- The 4th defendant had no knowledge about the proceedings in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 on the file of the District Court, Nellore. The Waqf Board never impleaded this defendant as a party in any of its proceedings. The market value mentioned in the plaint at Rs. 3,000/-per ankanam is very high and not correct. Even if the plaintiff has got any claim, it is only against the defendants 1 to 3 and he cannot have any claim against the other defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant died and his legal heirs came on record as defendants 6 to 9 in the suit as per the orders in I.A. No. 313 of 1990 dated 02.12.1991. After coming on record, the defendants 6 to 9 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the 4th defendant in the suit. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount towards compensation? (ii) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 9. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 23.02.1996, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/ defendants 1 to 3 in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 23.02.1996, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/ defendants 1 to 3 in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 10. Heard Sri T.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Judge is contrary to law and they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made by the appellants before this Court, the following point would arise for determination: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit with proportionate costs against the estate of late Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-with subsequent interest as ordered by the trial Court? 13. Point: The case of the plaintiff is that the father of the first defendant and the material grand father of the defendants 2 and 3 by name Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy sold a vacant site of 40 ankanams situated at Nellore town in favour of the plaintiff's elder brother Biradavolu Ramachandra Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952 for a sum of Rs. 1200/-and the said property was purchased by the Ramachandra Reddy on behalf of the joint family as a manager of the joint family and the said joint family is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the partition dated 04.06.1952 the said 40 ankanams of vacant site fell to the share of plaintiff, since the date of partition the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the partition dated 04.06.1952 the said 40 ankanams of vacant site fell to the share of plaintiff, since the date of partition the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board filed a suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1968 against the plaintiff which was subsequently transferred to the District Court, Nellore and re-numbered as O.S. No. 6 of 1972 for recovery of possession of 83 ankanams of land which includes 40 ankanams of vacant site covered by the registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952 and the suit filed by the Waqf Board was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Nellore and an appeal was preferred by the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein the High Court found in its judgment that the site of 40 ankanams sold by the Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy is the Waqf property. Even though the plaintiff herein prosecuted the said judgment before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (S.L.P), but the same was dismissed. Therefore, the said finding given by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh is ended with finality. Subsequently the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board filed E.P. No. 17 of 1984 and took a possession of 40 ankanams of site and delivery was also recorded, the same is not in dispute by both sides. Since the plaintiff lost the possession of the property and thereby sustained loss, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants. 14. The admitted facts in the case on hand are joint family consisting of Biradavolu Ramachandra Reddy, Sundararami Reddy and the plaintiff purchased 40 ankanams of site situated at Nellore town from Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952 and in a family partition, the said 40 ankanams of the site fell to the share of the plaintiff under a registered partition deed dated 04.06.1952, since the date of partition, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is not in dispute that Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board filed a suit O.S. No. 6 of 1972 on the file of District Court, Nellore and the said suit was dismissed, later the Waqf Board filed an appeal before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S. No. 630 of 1974 and the appeal was allowed by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh with an observation that the said 40 ankanams of site is a Waqf Board property. 15. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3 would contend that the plaintiff herein failed to prosecute the case in an effective manner before the Court of law. The fact remains that the suit is filed by the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board against the plaintiff herein and the said suit was dismissed and the Waqf Board filed an appeal and the plaintiff herein contested before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the appeal filed by the Waqf Board is allowed by composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh with an observation that the 40 ankanams of site fell to the share of plaintiff in a family partition belongs to the Waqf Board property. The fact remains that the plaintiff challenged the said decree and judgment passed by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh before the Apex Court and the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,54,000/-being the value of 40 ankanams of site lost by him in a family partition. It is not in dispute that in a family partition in the year 1952 between the brothers the plaintiff got the 40 ankanams of site purchased under Ex.A5 from Katamreddy Sundararamireddy and the same is admitted by DW1 in his evidence that in the family partition the site purchased under Ex.A5 was allotted to the plaintiff herein. It is not in dispute by both sides that in the site allotted to the plaintiff towards family partition, the plaintiff constructed a building and residing therein leaving the 40 ankanams of suit site vacant. It is not in dispute by both sides that in the site allotted to the plaintiff towards family partition, the plaintiff constructed a building and residing therein leaving the 40 ankanams of suit site vacant. As stated supra, the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board filed a suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1968 before the Subordinate Judge, Nellore and later it was transferred to District Court, Nellore vide O.S. No. 6 of 1972, upon the dismissal of the said suit, an appeal was carried out by the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board vide A.S. No. 630 of 1974 and the said appeal was allowed by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh with an observation that the plaintiff to retain the site where he made constructions after paying Rs. 18,000/-towards costs of the site towards Waqf Board and deliver a possession of the suit site of 40 ankanams which is vacant to the Waqf Board. It is a fact that the Waqf Board filed execution petition proceedings vide E.P. No. 17 of 1984 on the file of District Judge, Nellore and taken over the possession of the said 40 ankanams of site from the plaintiff herein. 16. The material on record reveals that the plaintiff lost the property and he lost the title in a property which he got under registered family partition. It was contended by the plaintiff that he is entitled to claim damages on the basis of market value of the land as on the date of dispossession and the plaintiff is claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per ankanam. As per the evidence of PW1, by the date, the Waqf Board took possession in the year 1985, the market value of the land is Rs. 3,000/-per ankanam. As per his evidence, the said 40 ankanams site is situated in the town of Nellore which is just nearer to the National High Way and the market complex is also there just nearer to the said site. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3 contend that the market value of the said land is not Rs. 3,000/-per ankanam and the value claimed by the plaintiff is excessive. But admittedly the defendants did not file any documentary proof to show that the market value of the property for each ankanam is not fetching for Rs. 3,000/-. 3,000/-per ankanam and the value claimed by the plaintiff is excessive. But admittedly the defendants did not file any documentary proof to show that the market value of the property for each ankanam is not fetching for Rs. 3,000/-. On the other hand, the plaintiff relied on the valuation certificates issued by the joint Sub-Registrar, Nellore and the Ex.A9 is the certified copy of the same and Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the valuation certificate. On considering the Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, the learned trial Judge rightly came to conclusion that the said site is situated in busy locality at Nellore town and by giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge, came to conclusion that the market value of the said land is Rs. 2,500/-per ankanam. The fact remains that the first defendant is the daughter of the vendor Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy and defendants 2 and 3 are her daughters. It is not in dispute by both sides that the said Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy sold the vacant site of 40 ankanams which is a disputed land to the plaintiff's elder brother Biradavolu Ramachandra Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1952 for a sum of Rs. 1200/-by saying that it is his exclusive property. The said 40 ankanams of site came to be the share of plaintiff in a registered partition held in between the family members of plaintiff. As stated supra, in a suit filed by the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board by claiming the said 40 ankanams of site, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh gave a finding that the said site belongs to exclusive property of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board and Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy is not having any title to the said property. The relationship of defendants 1 to 3 with Katamreddy Sundararamireddy is not at all in dispute by the defendants 1 to 3. Furthermore, DW1 admitted in her evidence that after the death of her father Sundararami Reddy, herself and the defendants 2 and 3 succeeded the house property worth of Rs. 50,00,000/-situated in Nellore town. The above admissions of DW1 clearly goes to show that they succeeded the estate of Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the plaintiff from out of the estate of the deceased Katamreddy Sundararamireddy. 50,00,000/-situated in Nellore town. The above admissions of DW1 clearly goes to show that they succeeded the estate of Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the plaintiff from out of the estate of the deceased Katamreddy Sundararamireddy. On considering the entire material on record by giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit against the estate of late Katamreddy Sundararami Reddy in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization. By giving cogent reasons, the suit against defendants 4 to 9 is dismissed by the trial judge. The present appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3/appellants in the case on hand, therefore, there are no merits in the present appeal. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference, accordingly the point is answered. 18. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, by confirming the decree and Judgment dated 23.02.1996, in O.S. No. 144 of 1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I order that each party do bear their own costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.