( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge in C. C. C. A. No. 1 of 1992 on 24th June, 1998. The plaintiff has filed L. P. A. No. 166/98 and two of the defendants who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit have filed L. P. A. No. 226/99. Other defendants have not chosen to file any appeal. Both the appeals were beard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of plaint a schedule property. She also sought eviction of defendants from the a schedule property. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint b schedule property. She also sought recovery of Rs. 6,000. 00 towards the past arrears of damages for use and illegal occupation of plaint a schedule portion, and she also claimed future damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000. 00 per month for use and occupation of plaint a schedule property. The plaintiff s case briefly was that, she was the absolute owner of the house bearing M. No. 21-2-131/7 to 9, charkaman, Hyderabad. According to the plaintiff, one Sharbati Bai had purchased the same with her own funds through a registered sale deed dated 2-9-1960 from smt. Gilli Bai. After purchase, she had demolished the old house and constructed mulgies on ground floor and residential portion on the first floor and one room on the second floor. Smt. Sharbati Bai entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 10-2-78 thereby agreeing to sell the entire double storeyed building for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000. 00. Rs. 10,000. 00 was acknowledged in the agreement itself. Smt. Sharbati Bai also executed another agreement on 20th March, 1979 agreeing to sell the said building in two portions separately in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed that the plaintiff would purchase the said building in two portions one portion being eastern portion consisting of three mulgies in the ground floor, three rooms in the first floor and one room in the second floor. Consideration for this purpose was agreed at Rs. 12,000. 00. It was also agreed that the western portion of the building would be sold for consideration of rs. 18,000/ -. Accordingly the plaintiff purchased the first portion under the sale deed dated 5-12-1980 by paying the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 12,000. 00. The plaintiff also obtained the possession of the property. Subsequent thereto the plaintiff purchased the remaining western portion by sale deed dated 4-6-1981 by paying the consideration of Rs. 18,000. 00. Possession was delivered to the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the entire house consisting of suit a and b schedule properties. The defendants 1 and 2 are close relatives of the plaintiff and they in collusion and connivance with defendants 3 to 5 trespassed into the a schedule portion on 1-7-81 and occupied the same. The defendants while denying the title of the plaintiff refused to vacate the same when the plaintiff asked them to vacate. According to the plaintiff the defendants have no right over the suit a and b properties and therefore they are liable to be vacated from the plaint a schedule portion. The defendants were also liable to pay damages for the use and illegal occupation of the a schedule portion. The defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statements. They claimed that one Jai Dayal was the brother of Sharbathi Bai. Gilli Bai was the wife of Jai Dayal. Sharbathi Bai was married to Ganesh Lal who was a wealthy person. Ganesh Lal and Sharbathi Bai had four sons namely Brij Mohan, Shambu dayal Gupta, Jagdish Pershad and omprakash Gupta. Ganesh Lal died on 27-2-1973 leaving his widow and sons with joint and undivided properties. Sharbathi bai had no personal property or estates when her husband died. Brij Moh