- (1.)The appellant is the plaintiff. This second appeal is filed against the judgment in A.S. 16/85 on the file of the District Court, Adilabad. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased the suit sites measuring 90 x 50 ft abutting another plot measuring 69 x 66 ft situated in Sy. No. 440 of Utnoor village and another plot measuring 102 x 80 ft, situated in Sy. No. 139 of the same village. The first plot he purchased was from one Sk. Hyder, the second plot from one Abdul Majeed and the third plot from one Hyder Ali, under the agreements of sale and the plaintiff is in possession of the said plots. The said Hyder Ali had purchased the third plot from one Ahmed Mohiuddin in the year 1962. Since the date of purchase of these plots by the plaintiff, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of one and all. The defendants herein have nothing to do with the plots and neither they are the owners of the plots nor possessors and they have no right whatsoever in the plots. The plaintiff applied for permission to construct a compound wall and it was granted by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff dug foundations for the construction of the Compound wall. While the said work was going on, on 28-10-79 all the defendants came and obstructed the work. They interfered with the work and did not allow the plaintiff and his men to carry out the work. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering. The defendants filed a written statement stating therein that the plaintiff is neither the owner of the suit plot nor was in possession of the same. They also disputed the map filed by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that the land belonged to one Ahmed Mohiuddin, elder brother of the defendants. He was a Deputy Collector in Maharashtra State. It is further submitted that the suit lands are situated in Utnoor village which is a notified agency tract and any sale in favour of the plaintiff is null and void. Therefore the possession of the plaintiff, even admitting the sale in his favour, is not valid in the eye of law. So, the plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction. It is further submitted that they themselves filed an application for construction before the Gram Panchayat. They got the foundations excavated and collected the material for construction. At this juncture, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
(2.)The plaintiff examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and filed documents Exs. A-1 to A-11. The defendants examined D. Ws. 1 to 3 The trial court framed the relevant issues-After appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found :
"So in view of the discussion, it brings to the conclusion that on the date of filing of the suit plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, accordingly this issue is answered which turned in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants."

(3.)However, the trial court refused the relief of injunction on the ground that the land is situated in the scheduled area, and therefore any sale in favour of the plaintiff is illegal as the same will be hit by Sec. 3 of the A P S L R (Amendment) Regulation, 1970. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court after discussing the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides held :
"I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned District Munsif on this aspect that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit properties on the date of the suit."
However, the lower appellate court also held that the sales in favour of the plaintiff are hit by Sec. 3 (1) (a) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, and dismissed the appeal. Against that order, the present second appeal is filed.