( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in OS No. 431 of 1984 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga reddy District are the appellants and the respondents in the appeal are the defendants in the suit. Respondents 32 to 38 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 16th respondent and respondents 39 and 40 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent 17 and respondents 41 and 42 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 23rd respondent, vide Court orders dated 17-3-1992 in CMP No. 11938 of 1990.

( 2 ) THE appellants/plaintiffs instituted the said suit as indigent persons and the appeal also is being prosecuted as indigent persons only.

( 3 ) THE respective pleadings of the parties are as follows:

( 4 ) THE appellants/plaintiffs had prayed for a declaration that they are the owners of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession of the said properties making the following allegations in the plaint.

( 5 ) IT is pleaded in the plaint that the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs Shri Ahmed khan was the owner of the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 1 to 31 (168 to 198), known as hussain Bowli, Mundi Kate Bowli, Mogala bai Gadda and Veerappagadda, situated at malkajiguda hamelt of Nandivanparthi village. Taluk Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy district. Previously Malkajiguda was arazi Maktha and treated as separate village and one Syed Qurban Hussain Khan was the Makhtedar of Malkajiguda village, ibrahimpatnam Taluq, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the Makthedar Syed Qurban hussain Khan had given away the suit lands to the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs through deed of permanent tenancy dated 30-4-1329 Fasli. Ahmed Khan was the eldest brother and he was having two brothers Ismail Khan and Mahboob Khan and three of them were living jointly. Ahmed Khan died issueless. The plaintiffs fathers succeeded to him and later on the plaintiffs have succeeded to their fathers. During the life time of the plaintiffs fathers there had been disputes between the makhtedar and the plaintiffs fathers and ultimately the cases have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs fathers. Later on, boundary dispute arose between the nakerta and Malkajiguda villages and later on after enquiry the case had been settled and the suit lands have been held part and parcel of Malkajiguda and later on the names of the plaintiffs, fathers had been entered in settlement records as possessors. It is further stated that after the death of syed Qurban Hussain Khan his successor had become the Makhtedar of Malkajiguda. He had admitted the rights of the plaintiffs fathers and submitted an application before Collector of Hyderabad District to issue supplementary sethwar in respect of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiffs fathers. It is further stated that the defendants have no concern with the title and possession of the suit lands. The defendants had colluded with the Makhtedars of malkajiguda and with their connivance they came into possession of the suit lands and later on they had stopped making payment of the rent to the plaintiffs and began to assert their ownership. The defendants have denied the ownership of the plaintiffs in the month of June, 1970 and since then stopped making payment of the rent. It is stated that these are the faets which constituted the cause of action. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to bring the suit against the defendants. The possession of the plaintiffs became disputed from 20-6-1970. It is also stated that the defendants have no manner of right to retain their possession over the suit lands after denying the title of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to bring the suit and they are also entitled for mesne profits.

( 6 ) WRITTEN statement was filed by defendants 1, 3, 10, 11,13 and 17 to 22 wherein all the material allegations had been denied. It was pleaded in the written statement as follows:

( 7 ) IN reply