Kumar, J.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs whose suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs is dismissed by the trial Court after trial. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the trial court.

2. The plaintiffs claim that, they are the owners of the property bearing No. 51, 51A to K(old), New No.131 situated at Veerapillay Street, Civil Station, Bangalore, which is hereinafter referred to as the “schedule properties” . They claim title to the said properties having inherited the same from Sri Gangadhara Mudaliar, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said Sri Gangadhara Mudaliar died on 15.5.1970. In the plaint they have set out the geneological tree. The said Gangadhara Mudaliar is the last male member of the family. He would be the Bandhu of Sri. Periaswamy.

3. The specific case pleaded by the plaintiffs’ is that the schedule property belongs to Sri Periaswamy. He died in 1894. Smt. Unnamalaiammal, the daughter of Periaswamy had a life interest in the schedule property. She died on 30.7.1964 at Bangalore. On her death, as she was a limited owner, the title to the schedule property reverted to the plaintiffs, who are the revisioners. As $1111. Unnamalaiammal had alienated the property in favour of one Natesha Mudaliar on 7-8-1943 who died leaving behind the defendants-1 to 4, the said alienation did not bind them to any extent whatsoever. The other defendants, namely, defendants No.5, 6,6(a) to 6( d) and 21 claim this property through Natesha Mudaliar being alienees, and those alienations are also not binding on the plaintiffs. It is contended that the said Natesha Mudaliar had mortgaged the property to defendant No.5. In pursuance to the decree obtained by defendant No.5 schedule property was ordered to be brought to sale as per. orders passed in O.S.No. 28/1962. As the said alienation are not binding on the plaintiffs, they called upon the defendants-l to 4 by way of legal notice to hand over possession to them. They have also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for three years. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, defendants-1 to 4 through their General Power of Attorney Sri. G. Sundar Rajan had alienated the part of the suit property in favour of the 6th defendant Sri. M.K.Yousuff and the remaining part to the 23rd defendant Sri. S.M.Anwar Pasha and have delivered physical possession of a portion to them. Defendants-7 to 22 are the tenants in occupation of several portions of the suit building ever since the filing of the suit in the year 1973~ Some of the tenants filed a petition under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for deposit of rent. To the said proceedings they had made the first plaintiff and General Power of Attorney holder of defendants-l to 4 as parties contending that as both of them were claiming to be landlords and demanding payment of rents, they sought permission of the court to deposit the amount in the court. By order dated 13.11.19.78, the court passed an order directing them to deposit the rent in the court till the real landlord is ascertained. Accordingly, for some time they deposited the money and thereafter they have stopped making deposits. They have set out in the plaint the suit filed by defendant No.6 for arrears of rent, as well as for eviction against the various tenants and contend that the 6th defendant has no right to initiate such proceedings. Defendants-7 to 9 and 12 had filed O.S.No. 10690/1984 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, against the 6th defendant and in the said suit an order of temporary injunction was passed against him restraining him from demolishing or damaging the said tenaments or in any way interfering with the peaceful occupation of the said plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim a declaration that the alienation made in favour of late Natesha Mudalia