V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

This regular appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of a judgment passed by the trial Court rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

2. Heard Sri. M.V Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. M.V.S Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6. The respondents 7 to 10 herein, who were also the applicants along with the respondents 1 to 6 herein in the application for rejection of plaint filed before the trial Court, have been served with summons. But they have not chosen to enter appearance. The respondents 11 to 17, 20, 23, 24, 26 to 28, 31, 34 to 41, 46 to 58, 60 to 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80 to 82, 84, 86, 88 & 89 have all been served with summons. Some of them have entered appearance through counsel, but others have chosen to remain unrepresented. But for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, the presence of respondents 1 to 10 is what is material, since it is their application for rejection of plaint, which was allowed by the trial Court, forcing the plaintiff to come up with the present appeal. Therefore, we have taken up the appeal for disposal.

3. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S No. 748 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, praying for: (1) partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the suit schedule property; (2) a declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S No. 101 of 1969 dated 28-11-1969 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District was obtained fraudulently by Shanigala Narsaiah and Yellaiah; (3) a declaration that the Sale deeds and Gift deeds of defendants 4 to 11 were null and void; (4) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 11 from raising any further structures; (5) a direction to the defendants 46 to 55, i.e. revenue authorities, HMDA & GHMC etc., to demolish the existing structures; and (6) a direction to defendants 59 to 70 to stop financial aid to defendants 1 to 7.

4. The claim of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit was that the agricultural lands of the total extent of about Ac.36.18 guntas comprised in various survey numbers in Nizampet village, Qutubullapur Mandal, belonged to his great grand father by name Mustigulla @ Namaswamy Narsimhulu, even prior to independence; that Namaswamy Narsimhulu died, leaving behind him surviving, 4 sons by name Ramaiah, Lakshmaiah, Buchaiah and Yellaiah out of whom Lakshmaiah and Yellaiah died issueless; that Ramaiah had a son by name Namaswamy Narsimhulu (who was the 17th defendant in the suit) and a daughter by name Lachamma, who died; that Narsimhulu had one son and 2 daughters, whose legal heirs were defendants 18 to 23; that Buchaiah died in 1970 leaving behind him 3 daughters and 2 sons, out of whom one son and 2 daughters died; that one those sons of Buchaiah by name Namaswamy Narsinga Rao was the 12th defendant; that Narsinga Rao has 3 sons, one of whom is the plaintiff and the other two are defendants 14 and 15; that the properties in Survey Nos. 157 and 173 of Nizampet village, Qutubullapur Mandal measuring a total extent of Ac.1.31 guntas stood in the name of the original pattedar (Namaswamy Narsimhulu) and his elder son Ramaiah from 1954 till 1970; that the plaintiff gained knowledge about the existence of the ancestral property through his maternal grand parents in August, 2013 and immediately he took steps to gather particulars and also issued notices and representations to various parties; that 2 persons by name Shanigala Narsaiah and Yellaiah, who were cultivating the properties, filed a suit in O.S No. 101 of 1969 and obtained a decree fraudulently; that the plaintiff himself filed 5 petitions in I.A(SR) Nos. 5059 to 5064 of 2013 for reopening of the suit O.S No. 101 of 1969; that the 17th defendant who is none other than the eldest surviving male member of the branch emanating f