L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. - (1.)Defendants in O.S.No.186 of 1994, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, filed this Second Appeal. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property; recovery of possession thereof, and for mandatory injunction, for removal of the structures on the suit schedule property, raised by the appellants herein. He pleaded that on 11-09-1985, his daughter entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1), with one Kakuturu Chandra Reddy, to purchase an extent of 33 ankanams of land. On the same day, through sale deed, marked as Ex.A-4, an extent of 18 ankanams was purchased by his daughter from the same vendor, under Ex.A-1. The balance of consideration is said to have been paid, by 10-05-1987. It was alleged that an endorsement, Ex.A-2, was obtained from the wife of the vendor, on 10-05-1987, keeping the agreement alive.
(2.)The respondent stated that after the death of Chandra Reddy, he approached his family members and they in turn, have assured him, that the agreement would be honoured, but in view of the escalation of prices, sale deed would be executed for a smaller extent. The wife of Chandra Reddy, Smt. Vazravathamma, is said to have executed sale deed, (Ex.A-3), on 04-07-1994, for an extent of 17. ankanams of land, as against 36 ankanams, promised under Ex.A-1. The respondent alleged that he went to Madras, some time in July 1994, and taking advantage of his absence, the appellants have encroached upon his land, and raised thatched sheds. The appellants filed written-statement, denying the allegations of the respondent. It was pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale, dated 06-6-1992, marked as Ex.B-1, executed by Smt. Vazravathamma. A dispute was also raised, as to the correctness of the description of property, particularly the survey numbers, mentioned in Exs.A-1 to A-4.
(3.)The trial Court framed necessary issues. On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 to 6 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, DW-1 was examined, and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner, for identification of the suit schedule property. He was examined as PW-4, and he filed Exs.C-1 to C-5. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and arguments advanced before it, the trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment dated 07-02-2000. The respondent filed A.S.No.3 of 2000 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and decreed the suit, through its judgment dated 09-04-2004. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court recorded clear findings, to the effect that the suit schedule property was different from the one, purchased under Ex.A-4, and that there was no justification or basis for the Lower Appellate Court in reversing the same. He places reliance upon the reports, submitted by PW-4; which were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2, and contends that the respondent failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property. He takes exception to the approach of the Lower Appellate Court, in not framing points for consideration, as required under Rule 31 of Order 41 C.P.C.