( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 4-1-2000 passed by the court below in I. A. Nos. 415 and 416 of 2000 in O. S. No. 1 of 2000.

( 2 ) I. A. NO. 415 of 2000 is filed under order 6 Rule 16 C. P. C. to strike out the pleadings filed on behalf of the defendants or otherwise to expunge the written statement filed in their names by their previous Advocate Sri Sunil Kumar in O. S. No. 408/1994 on the file of iii Additional Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, which was transferred and numbered as O. S. No. 1/2000 on the file of the lower court.

( 3 ) I. A. NO. 416/2001 was filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. read with Section 151 C. P. C. to permit the defendants to file a detailed written statement.

( 4 ) BY the impugned common order and decree, the court below dismissed both the i. As. Hence, the defendants in the suit filed the present revision petitions.

( 5 ) THE suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction with regard to the disputed property of about Ac. 4-10 guntas of Tirumalgiri.

( 6 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

( 7 ) IT is necessary to go into the facts of the case. The suit was filed in the year 1994 by the plaintiff for declaration of title and injunction. The plaint averments in brief are that the plaintiff is a society with the object of acquiring the lands for the benefit of the members. When the society was not registered, the suit land was identified as fit for the purpose of making plots for the benefit of the members. At that point of time one Mr. Mohd. Server, who was the original owner with whom the society was negotiating, entrusted the further work to the defendant for effecting the purchase and other formalities, as it was not registered by then. In this regard, an agreement was entered into between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff - society. The said agreement is dated 8-3-1978 and the same is marked as ex. B-28. As per the said agreement it was specifically agreed that the 1st defendant will get the land measured and after obtaining the legal opinion as to title, will pay money to the original landlord and obtain possession after getting sale deed executed in the name of the society after the society is registered. Subsequently the society was registered. In the meanwhile the 1st defendant had purchased the land from the original owner not only in his name, but also in the name of his family members and they were defendants 2 to 4. In other words according to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant along with other defendants were only custodian of the property belonging to the plaintiff - Society. As agreed, the sale transaction was completed between the original owner and the 1st defendant on 2-1-1979. Another agreement dated 16-9-1981, Ex. B-29 was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to the effect that the plaintiff will hold the land as owner and that the expenses incurred by the 1st defendant from the date of purchase to the date of delivery of possession of the land to the plaintiff towards survey, demarcation and for development and for protection of the land will be paid to the 1st defendant after rendering accounts.

( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY when the plaintiff transformed into a registered society, started demanding the defendants to transfer the disputed land in the name of the plaintiff. For one reason or the other, the request of the plaintiff was not acceded to and the same was being postponed and the 1st defendant has also not rendered any account of expenses incurred by him during the interregnum period. Hence the plaintiff - society, filed the suit.

( 9 ) THE defendant filed a written statement stating inter alia that these defendants held it for the benefit of the plaintiffs and after the society was incorporated on 28-8-1981, delivered the land to the plaintiff and also executed a memorandum dated 16-9-1981 which was ratified by t