( 1 ) THE appellants are defendants 2, 10, 11 and 13 to 16. Defendants 10 to 14 are the legal representatives of the 1st defendant. The respondents are the son and daughter of one Panaiah. They filed a suit for declaration that they are the reversioners of one Bodemma alias Panamma for possession of their property. In this appeal we are concerned with regard to items, 1, 4, 5 and part of 1/4th share in item 6. The 2nd defendant is claiming items 1 and 4 and defendants 10 to 14, the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, are claiming item 5 and part of 1/4th share in item 6. The trial court granted a decree for possession and mesne profits in respect of these items with proportionate costs, and to enquire into mesne profits from 22-7-1975 by a separate application. Assailing the legality thereof, the appeal has been filed.

( 2 ) THE suit has got a checkered career and therefore it is necessary to give in detail the salient factors. The property originally belonged to Bodemma alias Pannamma, aunt of the father of respondents viz. Pannaiah. She bequeathed these properties under the will dt. Nov. 25, 1944 to his father Pannaiah, Pannaiah was addicted to vices and started squandering the properties. Therefore, elders including P. W. 2 have effected a settlement under which Pannaiah executed a settlement deed, Ex. A-1 dt. Feb. 16, 1948 whereunder he reserved life estate for himself and his wife and vested remainder to the children to be born to them. The other details are not necessary for the purpose of this case. But, during their lifetime they alienated the properties, the relevant items under Ex. A-4 dt. Feb. 27, 1950, item 5 to the 1st defendant, on the even date under Ex. A-5 in respect of items 1 to 4 and 6 to the father of the 2nd defendant and gave possession to them. Subsequently the 1st appellant was born on Nov. 2, 1951 and the 2nd appellant in the year, 1954. At a partition between the 2nd defendant and his brothers items 1 to 4 fell to himself and one Venkataswamy who sold item 6 to defendants 1, 3 and 4 and one Nadipi Hussain under Exs. A-7 to A-10. The 1st defendant also purchased a portion of item 6 under Ex. A-15 dt. July 26, 1967 from Nadipi Hussain. Venkataswamy and his wife sold under Ex. A-14 dt. Mar. 2, 1962 item 2 to the 5th defendant. The 2nd defendant sold item 3 to the 6th defendant under Ex. A-13 dt. Feb. 28, 1962. Equally the 1st defendant sold Ac. 0-16 cents to defendants 7 and 8 in item 3 under Exs. A-11 and A-12, dt. May 22, 1961. But, the Plaintiffs got issued the suit notice Ex. A-17 dt. Nov. 19, 1968 claiming for possession of the properties to which defendants 1, 3 and 4 and Venkataswamy refused notice and others issued notice denying the setting up of title. Thus the respondents came to file the suit. The plea of the 1st defendant of whom defendants 10 to 14 are the legal representatives is that Pannaiah was addicted to bad habits and therefore he needed money, he alienated the properties to them for valid consideration, they are the bona fide purchasers without notice of the restricted rights. Ex. A-1 is a false document brought into existence to defeat their claims. They are the holders of the property and therefore the alienation s cannot be set at naught. Others have followed the defence taken. The trial court on framing three issues and adduction of evidence by judgment dt. Dec. 16. 1971 considered the same and decreed the suit and on appeal in AS 34/74 additional written statements were filed by defendants 2, 5, 10, 11 and 13 on the demise of the 1st defendant. It is their case that Bodemma died as a result they filed IA No. 190/75 to grant the relief of possession. That IA was allowed. Against that CRP No. 84 of 1976 was filed in this Court and this court allowed the CRP on the ground that the appellate Court cannot order amendment with a view to enhance its pecuniary jurisdiction, accordingly it set aside the order and remanded the matter to the appellate court and t