ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. CERTAIN PROPERTIES WERE OWNED BY ONE BHANUDAS. BHANUDAS HAD TWO SONS - PANDITRAO AND GAJANAN. PANDITRAO WAS MARRIED TO ONE SHEVANTABAI. THE APPELLANTS ARE THE CHILDREN OF PANDITRAO AND SHEVANTABAI. RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 WERE THE HEIRS OF GAJANAN AND HENCE REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF GAJANAN. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE PURCHASERS OF THE INTEREST OF RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN A THE SUIT PROPERTY.

3. IN 1985 TWO SUITS WERE FILED. THE FIRST WAS THE SUIT BY THE APPELLANTS AGAINST RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN WHICH THEY PRAYED FOR A DECLARATION THAT THEY WERE THE SOLE HEIRS OF PANDITRAO AND WERE ENTITLED TO THE SUIT PROPERTY AND TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION THEREOF. THEY ALSO PRAYED FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 FROM INTERFERING WITH THEIR RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. THE CASE IN THE PLAINT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS OWNED BY PANDITRAO AND IN WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD ALL ALONG CONTINUED TO BE IN POSSESSION.

4. THE SECOND SUIT WAS FILED BY RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ALSO PRAYING FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY. THE SUITS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING BY THE TRIAL COURT. THE APPELL