( 1 ) THE appellants herein are the defendants in O. S. No. 149 of 1995 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. The respondents herein filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction claiming to be the owners and possessors of an extent of Ac. 1. 15 gts, and Ac. 1. 14 gts, in sy. Nos. 95/a and 95/b respectively of bommakal village.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that when they obtained certified copies of the Pahanis for obtaining a loan from the Co-operative bank, they found that the Pahanis for the years 1980-81 to 1988-89, 1991-92 and 1992-93 recorded the name of the 1st defendant as the possessor, while the Pahani for the years 1989-90 the name of the 2nd defendant as the possessor. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to take steps to rectify the entries in the revenue records. The defendants refused and also denied the title of the plaintiffs. The defendants also came to the suit schedule property on 10-5-94 and tried to interfere with the petitioners possession. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE appellants herein resisted the suit contending that the father of the 2nd defendant purchased the land in sy. No. 95/a on 10-4-1954 by way of an unregistered sale deed from B. Hanmaiah father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and the possession thereof was delivered to a. Mallaiah, father of the 2nd defendant. Similarly B. Narasimha Reddy father of the plaintiffs 4 to 6 sold the land in Sy. No. 95/b to the father of the 2nd defendant by an unregistered sale deed dt 15-5-64. The possession of this property was also delivered to A. Mallaiah by Narasimha reddy. Eversince, the father of the 2nd defendant was in possession of the property.

( 4 ) THE trial court by the judgment and decree dt 15-3-99 dismissed the suit concluding that the plaintiffs had not proved their title and also rejected the relief of recovery of possession holding that though the defendants came into possession of the suit property through an unregistered sale deed, they continued in possession qua sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and that the plaintiffs are not in possession.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED, the respondents herein preferred A. S. No. 30 of 1999 on the file of the iv Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar. During the pendency of this appeal the 3rd plaintiff died on 28-1-2000 and no steps were taken by the plaintiffs - respondents herein, to bring the legal representatives of the 3rd plaintiff on record in the appeal. Unmindful of this fact, however, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal by the judgment and decree dated 8-5-2002 and granted the plaintiffs the relief sought in the suit. The lower appellate court concluded that the suit lands belong to the family of the plaintiff, that they were not sold to the defendants and that the unregistered sale deeds Exs. B-1 and B-2 are false, fabricated and brought into existence for the Us. The court below further held that no significance could be attached to the entries made in the Pahanis as no legal title passed to the defendants. The lower appellate court also found that the Pahanis produced by the plaintiffs and defendants do not tally and from this it concluded that they have been tampered with.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED thereby this Second Appeal is instituted by the defendants in the suit, inter alia assailing that the appeal A. S. 30/99 stood abated in its entirety as the LRs of the 3rd plaintiff-3rd appellant in A. S. No. 30/99 were not brought on record, within time from the date of his death on 28-1-2000 and consequently the decree and judgment in a. S. No. 30/99 is a nullity.

( 7 ) IT requires to be noticed that in instituting the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction the plaintiffs claimed common ownership and possession of the suit schedule lands. The question that arises for consideration is whether in such circumstances on account of the death of the 3rd plaintiff