MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. No. 175 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasti are the appellants herein.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience the parties, are addressed as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit O. S. 175/1985. The plaintiffs instituted the above suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs title over the plaint schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interferring with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

( 3 ) BEFORE the tnat Court the case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows : According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Mohammed Ghouse Saheb Gori as his self-acquired separate property. He had put up a house and was living in the said site with his family members. The plaint schedule property was also shown in the name of the said Mohammed Ghouse Saheb Gori as his self-acquired separate property. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property was also shown in the name of said Mohammed Ghouse Saheb Gori in the books maintained for account and for village site of Srikalahasti in the year 1910. The said Mohammad Ghouse Saheb Gori died about 33 years back leaving the plaintiffs as his legal representatives who continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also perfected their title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs claim that they paid non-agricultural land tax on the suit property and also paid taxes to the Gram Panchayat, Srikalahasti and later on to the Srikalahasti Municipality. Accordingly to the plaintiffs, the entries made in property tax demand register for the years 1955-56, 1959-60 and 1963-64 clearly show that the plaintiffs are in occupation of the plaint schedule property.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs assert that the first defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit property and he was never in possession of the same. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are illiterates. The 3rd plaintiff worked in the provisional shop of the 1 st defendant by which time the 4th plaintiff was a minor. The plaintiffs allege that taking advantage of their position, the 1 st defendant manipulated a plan and some property receipts to a portion of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant obtained the property tax receipts in his name though in fact the 3rd plaintiff paid the tax. It is further alleged that in order to cover up his fraud with a sole purpose of grabbing the property, the first defendant filed O. S. No. 379 of 1974 against the plaintiffs for a declaration of his title and for delivery of possession of a portion of the schedule mentioned properties on the file of the District Munsif, Srikkalahasti. The plaintiffs plead that as they arc all innocent and ignorant people and they could not put forward their case effectively before the Court and lost the suit. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 379/1974 and appeal in A. S. No. 117/1977 was filed and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the appeal in A. S. No. 117/1977, the plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal No. 348/1983 which was also ultimately dismissed by this Court.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the first defendant has again hatched a plan by getting another plan approved by the Municipality, Srikalahasti, to construct a permanent house by ousting the plaintiffs from their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thus, the plaintiffs allege mala fides against the defendants and the present suit was instituted for a declaration of the plaintiff s title over the plaint schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs possession.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were added as legal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document