The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.218 of 1974, in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chirala. They filed the suit against the respondents, for the relief of recovery of possession of plaint A-schedule land, from defendants 1 and 2, and in the alternative, for decree of Rs.6,000/-, with subsequent interest, against defendants 3 and 4. It was also claimed that a charge over B-Schedule property be created, for payment of the same. The case presented by the appellants was as under.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

3. Addanki Venkata Narasimham and his cousin brother Addanki Veera Raghavaiah, held various items of immovable properties in joint. They had a sister by relation, T. Laxmamma, who became widow at an young age, and was living at her parental house. On 22.5.1923, Venkatanarasimham and Veera Raghavaiah executed a document, Ex.B-1, in favour of their sister, T.Laxmamma. Under this, life interest was created in favour of their sister, over an extent of Acs.5-05 cents of land in Sy.Nos.286 and 282/2 of Addanki village (for short "the suit schedule property"). The vested remainder was to revert to the legal heirs of Venkata Narasimham and Veera Raghavaiah, after the death of Laxmamma. Few years thereafter, both the brothers died and their sister was alive till 1967.

4. Smt.Mahalaxmamma was the wife of Venkata Narasimham, and Smt.Venkata Subbamma was the wife of Veera Raghavaiah. After the death of the two cousin brothers, Mahalaxmamma filed O.S.No.653 of 1935, in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ongole, for maintenance, against Venkata Subbamma. The dispute was settled out of court, with the intervention of elders, and a compromise decree, Ex.B-5, was passed on 21.10.1936. Apart from other items of properties held by the joint family, the widows partitioned their future right to succeed to the vested remainder, in the event of death of their sister-in-law, Laxmamma. The suit schedule property, covered by Ex.B-1, was to revert to them. Schedule A and B of plaint schedule are the equal halves of the said Ac.5-05 cents.

5. Venkata Subbamma, widow of Veera Raghavaiah, adopted the 4th defendant, by name Venkataramaiah, through a registered Adoption Deed, Ex.A-4, dated 10.8.1962. She had also executed a will, Ex.A-2, dated 4.8.1962, bequeathing her entire property to her adopted son. She died few months thereafter. Defendant No.4, being a minor, through his natural father, the 3rd defendant, sold the A-schedule property to the plaintiffs, through a sale deed, Ex.A-1, dated 17.5.1968. The plaintiffs contended that defendants 1 and 2, have no manner of right and trespassed into the A-schedule property, with the collusion of defendants 3 and 4, high handedly.

6. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement, admitting the sequence of events, up to the stage of the passing of compromise decree in O.S.No.653 of 1935. According to him, Mahalaxmamma executed a will, Ex.B-6, dated 25.9.1961, in favour of her brother late Mynampati Venkata Narasimham, who is the father of 2nd defendant, bequeathing all her properties, including the suit schedule property, and that she died in November 1961. Mynampati Venkata Narasimham, in turn, is said to have executed a will, dated 25.9.1961 in favour of 2nd defendant, and thereafter, he died on 19.1.1966. It was pleaded that on the death of Laxmamma in April 1967, the 2nd defendant, being the legatee of the estate Mahalaxmamma, and the 4th defendant being the adopted son of legatee of Venkata Subbamma, inherited to the vested remainder, in the suit schedule property, in equal shares. Subsequently, the property is said to have been divided into two halves and that the A-schedule property has fallen to his share. He further stated that the 1st defendant was a tenant of the said land, before it was divided, and thereafter. The validity of the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiffs is seriously disputed. It was further pleaded th