( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3 and 5. The 4th defendant died during the pendency of the suit. The said defendant was given up by the plaintiffs on the ground that he vacated the property and died.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY the suit was filed by Eight plaintiffs-respondents herein. Plaintiff No. 6 died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were not brought on record as per the provisions of Order 22 C. P. C. But an application in LA. No. 987 of 1994 was filed by the plaintiff Nos. 9 to 13 under order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. which was allowed on 2-12-1994 and consequently they were brought on record as plaintiffs 9 to 13.

( 3 ) IT has further to be seen from the record that originally the suit was filedamong others by plaintiff No. 8 named Ch. Appa Rao but his name was substituted with Ch. Bharani Kumar on the ground that he died executing a Will in favour of Ch. Bharani Kumar. An application I. A. No. 1007 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. to substitute the name of Ch. Appa Rao with Ch. Bharani Kumar. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title as an absolute owners of the suit schedule property admeasuring 7,150 Sq. yards forming part of Sy. No. 403/a (Paiki) new R. S. No. 120/7 situated at Sheikpet village, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the illegal constructions and deliver back possession to the plaintiffs. The property was described in the suit schedule as follows: north: Neighbours land east : Neighbours land west : Neighbours land south: Neighbours land 3-A. The plaintiff No. 1 was examined as P. W. 1 and he produced certain documents and they were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-21. No evidence was led on behalf of the defendants. The details of Exs. A-l to A-14 under which the plaintiffs are claiming title are as follows:

Plff.

No.

Extent of land

Date of sale deed

Sub Plot No.

Consideration Rs.

.

Sq. yards.

.

.

.

No. 1

1228

20-10-65

F

1,375/-

No. 2

1280

20-10-65

G

750/-

No. 3

1267

20-10-65

C

750/-

No. 4

382. 84

18-06-66

E

1,000/-

No. 5

1267

20-10-65

D

750/-

No. 6

561

22-10-65

A-2

700/-

No. 7

600

22-01-65

B-2

750/-

No. 8

564

22-10-65

A-3

700/-

.

7149-84

.

Total

6,775/-

no sale deed was filed by plaintiff No. 5 in the trial Court. The alleged Will, which is alleged to have been executed by plaintiff No. 5 in favour of ch. Bharani Kumar, was also not filed. On evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on 26-12-1995. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of C. C. C. A. No. 57 of 1977, C. M. P. No. 21554 of 1998 was filed by the appellants to receive Ex. B-1 patta certificate by way of additional evidence, which was ordered by this Court. C. M. P. No. 21611/98 was filed by the appellants seeking permission to raise the additional grounds in the appeal and it was allowed. C. M. P. No. 3507 of 1999 was filed by the appellants seeking permission to raise further additional grounds. The total extent of the land of which the plaintiffs sought declaration of title and mandatory injunction is to the extent of 5882. 84 Sq. yards as per exs. A-1 to A-14.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. J. Prabhakar appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants submitted at the Bar that only looking to the pleadings of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the suit, the suit ought to have been dismissed by the learned Judge at the trial itself. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 3 C. P. C. provides as to who can be plaintiff to the suit and who can be defendant in the suit. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that all the plaintiffs in the suit are not proper parties. The learned Counsel further submitted that plaintiff no. 6 died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were not brought on record as per Order 22 C. P. C. But a