JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree, dated 05-9-1991, in O.S.No.139 of 1982, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the appellant is the defendant in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendant therefrom and for profits and costs.

4. In a nutshell, the averments in the plaint are as follows:

The schedule property belonged to Bhupatiraju Bangararaju who had three sisters. Bagararaju executed a settlement deed during his lifetime on 08-4-1929 with regard to his property. The ‘A’ schedule mentioned in the settlement deed was given with absolute rights to his three sisters. The schedule property is part of the ‘B’ schedule. There is house property in the village. Bangararaju gave limited rights to his wife Rattamma in the plaint schedule property and house property without any right of alienation. As per the settlement deed, the plaint schedule property and the house property shall be devolved on his sisters and their sons and daughters. The wife of Bangararaju did not acquire any absolute rights in the schedule property. Rattamma died intestate on 05-6-1982. After her death, the plaintiffs have taken possession of the schedule property and they are in possession of the same. The defendant filed an application in A.T.C. No.23 of 1982 against the 1st and 7th plaintiffs and some others and obtained orders of interim injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule property. It is stated in the tenancy application that late Rattamma leased out the schedule property to the defendant on an annual rent of Rs.1,500/- and executed a registered lease deed on 05-10-1981. It is further asserted that late Rattamma executed a Will, dated 25-5-1982, bequeathing the plaint schedule property as well as the other property to the defendant. The Will is a forged one. Rattamma had no testamentary capacity for any devolution over the plaint schedule property and the house property, as the devolution is governed by the provisions of the settlement deed, dated 08-4-1929, executed by late Bagararaju. Even if the Will is true, the same is not valid under law and the defendant does not acquire any right. Any rights that are acquired by the defendant as a tenant under the lease deed, dated 05-10-1981, have come to an end as he contends that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the Will dated 25-5-1982. The possession of the plaint schedule property was an invalid and a forged Will and as such the defendant is a trespasser of the schedule property. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are sons and 5 and 6 are daughters of one Nadimpalli Surayya, who died 30 years ago, while the 7th plaintiff is the niece of Vegesina Seetayya, who died about 20 years ago having executed a Will dated 04-3-1957 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all her property including her share i.e. vested remainder in the plaint schedule property in favour of the 7th plaintiff. The 8th plaintiff is the son of one Kalidindi Sundarayya. The plaintiffs 9 to 15 are the legal representatives of the deceased 7th plaintiff. The plaintiffs have thus become entitled to the schedule property under the provisions of settlement deed, dated 08-4-1929 and the defendant had no right to continue in possession of the schedule property as his possession is illegal and unlawful. The Will set up by him is not true and Rattamma had no right to give any disposition with regard to the plaint schedule property and the house. Hence the suit.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is as follows:

It is true that late Bangararaju executed a settlement deed during his life time on 08-4-1929 whereunder his wife should enjoy the plaint schedule property residing in the house p