( 1 ) THIS appeal suit preferred by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-8-1995 made in O. S. No. 22 of 1991 by the learned Additional district and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. O. S. NO. 22 of 1991 was originally filed by the 1st respondent herein, viz. , Viswanatha tulla s/o Rajanna for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties and for mesne profits, past and future. During the pendency of the suit, he died and respondents 2 to 5 herein were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows, He is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and he has raised mango, tamarind, Gova and Amla trees therein. He has also dug a borewell and fixed an oil engine. As there are fruit bearing trees and the plaintiff lived at a different place, he engaged the services of one ambam Yellappa to take care of the plaint schedule properties and the fruit bearing trees existing thereon under a noukarnama executed on 1-4-1967 for a period of two years and that noukarnama was renewed on 11-2-1969. The plaintiff himself has been cultivating the plaint schedule properties using the services of Ambam Yellappa under the noukarnama Kharar. The 1st defendant is the wife of the deceased ambam Yellappa and defendants 2 to 4 are his children. As the value of the plaint schedule properties increased, Ambam yellappa, on 17-5-1974, filed an application for rectification of the Pahanis from 1964-65 to 1975-76 and secured a favourable ex parte order without notice to the plaintiff. Later on ambam Yellappa filed another application before the Tahsildar for grant of injunction alleging that the plaintiff tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The Tah sildar passed an order in File No. A. 10/12527/78 granting injunction in favour of Ambam yellappa, and the plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal to the collector and obtained stay. On 17-9-1976 the said appeal was closed by the Collector on the ground that the subject matter of the dispute is of civil nature. In the year 1976, the plaintiff had raised sugar cane and paddy crops in the plaint schedule property. On 26-12-1976, Ambam Yellappa, defendants 2 to 4 along with anti-social elements came to the plaint schedule property, damaged the crops and took possession of the plaint schedule property forcibly. On a complaint made by the plaintiff, the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and rejected the claim of Ambam yellappa that he is a tenant, by his order dated 12-6-1981. Against the said order, the defendants as legal representatives of deceased Ambam Yellappa, preferred appeal before the Joint Collector and the joint Collector on 22-8-1985 allowed the appeal in favour of the defendants. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed C. R. P. No. 1066 of 1986 in this Court and this Court allowed the C. R. P. holding that the defendants are not tenants and the order made by this Court is also confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the s. L. P. filed by the defendants.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. However, in the written statement the defendants admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property, that the plaintiff was not in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the defendants have been in actual possession as tenants and the plaint schedule property was developed by late ambam Yellappa by spending huge amounts. They claim that they have dug a bore well and planted an oil engine in plaint schedule property. The execution of the noukarnamas is denied as fabricated ones. They claim that late Ambam Yellappa cultivated the plaint schedule property as a tenant for the last 50 years and he was in actual possession till his death, and after his death defendants 2 to 4 have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.