R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. This appeal suit is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.782 of 2013, aggrieved by order dated 20.06.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the interlocutory application filed by the 1st respondent/defendant No.31 in I.A.No.103 of 2013 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, by which, the plaint filed by the petitioners herein in O.S.No.782 of 2012 is rejected on the ground that the suit claim is barred by limitation.

2. The appellants herein have filed the suit against respondent No.1 and others for declaration declaring that the entries made in the revenue records reflecting the names of defendants 3 to 39 as possessors, are illegal, null and void and for correction of entries by entering their names as possessors in the revenue records/pahanis, with a consequential relief of perpetual injunction. Declaratory relief is also sought under Section 8(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, read with Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. As averred in the plaint, it is the case of plaintiffs that their father Late Sri Narayan Singh was possessor of lands in various survey numbers of Puppalaguda village of Rajendranagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District as a tenant of original pattadar Mr. Fakaryar Jung, who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1945. They claim title and possession to the land admeasuring Ac.14.20 gts. in Sy.No.310, Ac.12.32 gts. in Sy.No.311, Ac.20.14 gts. in Sy.No.312 and Ac.11.18 gts. in Sy.No.318. It is also stated that a Rythu passbook was also issued in the name of their father Late Narayan Singh in respect of the aforesaid suit schedule properties, totally admeasuring Ac.59.04 gts. It is alleged that the name of the father of plaintiffs continually appeared in possessory column of Pahanis till the year 1994-95 and the name of one Smt.Jeshi Bai appeared in pattadar column. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of Late Sri Narayan Singh and after his demise, they came into possession of the lands and are enjoying the same, and at no point of time, the pattadar Smt. Jeshi Bai or any other person, claiming on her behalf, interfered with their possession and thus, they perfected their title through adverse possession. The extracts of revenue records and pahanis for the years from 1972-73 to 1999-2000 were filed along with the suit.

4. It is alleged in the plaint that in the month of February 2008, when they noticed certain illegal interference over the suit schedule property and overheard the rumors of some third parties claiming certain portions of the suit schedule property, they have applied for pahanis for all the survey numbers and came to know that the names of certain irrelevant persons i.e. defendants 3 to 39 were recorded in the possessory column of pahanis and it was also noticed that certain sale transactions tookplace in respect of suit schedule property, and thus, coming to know about the same, they approached the 2nd respondent herein for correction of entries in the pahanis, on 30.01.2009, upon which, the 2nd respondent has issued a Memo in Lr.No.B/1513/2008, stating that he was not competent to order for corrections, and that the appeal preferred against the said letter, is pending. It is further alleged that in the month of February 2010, some unknown persons tried to interfere with the possession of plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have successfully prevented such interference and immediately, they got issued public caution notice through their Advocate, which was published in Eenadu newspaper on 16.02.2010. It is their further allegation that on discreet enquiries made by them, they learnt that the 2nd respondent herein has entered the names of defendants 3 to 39 in the revenue records, which is totally illegal and not supported by any order passed by competent authority. They have also referred to the revision pe