A RAMLOO Vs. G SREERAMACHANDRA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3 and 5. The 4th defendant died during the pendency of the suit. The said defendant was given up by the plaintiffs on the ground that he vacated the property and died.

(2.) Originally the suit was filed by Eight plaintiffs-respondents herein. Plaintiff No. 6 died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were not brought on record as per the provisions of Order 22 C.P.C. But an application in LA. No. 987 of 1994 was filed by the plaintiff Nos. 9 to 13 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which was allowed on 2-12-1994 and consequently they were brought on record as plaintiffs 9 to 13.

(3.) It has further to be seen from the record that originally the suit was filedamong others by plaintiff No. 8 named Ch. Appa Rao but his name was substituted with Ch. Bharani Kumar on the ground that he died executing a Will in favour of Ch. Bharani Kumar. An application I.A.No. 1007 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to substitute the name of Ch. Appa Rao with Ch. Bharani Kumar. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title as an absolute owners of the suit schedule property admeasuring 7,150 Sq. yards forming part of Sy.No. 403/A (Paiki) new R.S. No. 120/7 situated at Sheikpet village, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the illegal constructions and deliver back possession to the plaintiffs. The property was described in the suit schedule as follows: North: Neighbours land East : Neighbours land West : Neighbours land South: Neighbours land 3-A. The plaintiff No. 1 was examined as P.W. 1 and he produced certain documents and they were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-21. No evidence was led on behalf of the defendants. The details of Exs. A-l to A-14 under which the plaintiffs are claiming title are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_624_ALT2_1999Html1.htm</FRM> No sale deed was filed by plaintiff No. 5 in the trial Court. The alleged Will, which is alleged to have been executed by plaintiff No. 5 in favour of Ch. Bharani Kumar, was also not filed. On evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on 26-12-1995. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants.