B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The revision petitioners are the J.Drs. 2, 3, 5 and 6 among the 6 defendants/J.Drs. and unsuccessful applicants in E.A. No. 27 of 2014 covered by the impugned order dated 29.12.2015 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, in EP No. 124 of 2003 filed by the 3 plaintiffs pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 10.8.1992 declaring title of the plaintiffs/revision respondents by granting relief of possession in O.S. No. 464 of 1985 viz., Ac. 0-48 cents out of Ac. 1-92 cents dry on northern side in Patta No. 2 in survey No. 751 of Nellore Bit-II Village, bounded by East: Paniki Daweed's land; North: Peters land; South: Gurrapu Laxmaiah land and West: donka and daweeds land. The application in E.A. No. 27 of 2014 filed by them was under Section 151 CPC to direct the Court Amin to deliver the property to the decree holders in accordance with the orders passed by the executing Court earlier on 20.6.2012 (in E.A. No. 597 of 2009) taking into consideration of the boundaries. Coming to the grounds of revision and the scope of revision lis, it is essential to state the factual background of the lis. O.S. No. 464 of 1985 referred supra was maintained originally by sole plaintiff by name Rayapu Polaiah @ Pondaiah and who since died pending suit, plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 i.e., Rayapu Chinnaiah (his son) and Thepalapuddi Narayanamma (his married daughter and wife of one Gunnaiah) were added as legal representatives of 1st plaintiff vide orders in I.A. No. 981 of 1990 dated 17.10.1990. The suit filed was against 6 defendants originally by name Gurrapu Masthanu S/o. Polaiah and his two sons and wife i.e., Gurrapu Penchalaiah, Gurrapu Narayana and Mariamma and one Meduri Ranga Rao and Kamatam Danam. It is during pendency of the suit, Rayapu Chennaiah S/o. Polaiah @ Pondaiah, was; impleaded as per orders in I.A. No. 1379 of 1991 dated 21.2.1992. It is necessary to mention to be clarified further no doubt, the name of the 2nd plaintiff and 7th defendant including fathers name are correlating as a same person. The suit relief was for declaration of the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property of Ac. 0-48 cents out of Ac. 1-92 cents within the boundaries in S. No. 751 described supra and for recovery of possession after evicting the defendants and for future mesne profits. The suit was in fact filed for the relief of permanent injunction and the same was later converted into declaration of title and possession supra in the year 1990.

2. According to the plaint averments, the 1st plaintiff being owner has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land (plaint schedule property) for more than 20 years, which is ancestral land and succeeded by him after his father's death 20 years back and plaintiff while in possession was raising dry crops like ragi and his neighbouring lands also dry lands were converting into wet lands, the 1st plaintiff started preparation to convert into wet land and raised fencing to the Ac. 0-48 cents to the plaint schedule on 4 sides and also stocked hay ricks therein. The land of the 1st defendant is to the south of the suit land and the 1st defendant with ulterior motive started threatening to enter into suit land with the support of his henchmen including defendant Nos. 2 to 6 without any manner of right and unlawfully trespassed into the suit land after filing of the suit by coming into unlawful possession and thereby they are liable to be evicted and the title of the plaintiffs over the suit property is to be declared and they are also made liable for the mesne profits.

3. The written statement of the defendants was in opposing the suit claim filed originally for bare injunction on 16.1.1986 and after the suit filed by the plaintiffs supra was amended from relief of injunction to the relief of declaration and possession, the additional written statement dated 8.2.1991 was filed and also the written statement was amended pursuant to the orders in I.A. No. 128