1. By judgment and decree dated 09.10.2010 in O.S.No.5/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chintamani, suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction came to be decreed. Questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree, this appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of deceased-defendant No.6- Hussain Beig.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is briefly stated as under:

The deceased-defendant No.6-Hussain Beig was the original owner of suit schedule property, a building used for commercial purpose. He inducted the plaintiff as tenant in the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The plaintiff was running a cloth business in the schedule property under the name "MITHRA CLOTH EMPORIUM". Hussain Beig sold the schedule property to one Obaiah, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 under registered sale deed dated 18.12.1965 subject to the condition that Obaiah shall reconvey the property if Hussain Beig is ready to purchase within a period of 10 years. In view of the purchase of property by Obaiah, the plaintiff became tenant under Obaiah. Due to financial difficulties, Obaiah mortgaged the schedule property in favour of plaintiff/tenant for Rs. 7,000/-by registered mortgage deed dated 19.01.1971. The plaintiff invested an amount of Rs.5,000/-to put up construction of the first floor of the schedule building. As agreed, Obaiah reconveyed the schedule property to Hussain Beig by reconveyance deed dated 15.12.1975 and thereby Hussain Beig became the owner and mortgagor and plaintiff mortgagee of the schedule property. During the course of business, the plaintiff inducted defendant No.7-V.R. Narayanamurthy as one of the partners in his business. In due course of time, the plaintiff retired from the partnership. But the business was being carried out by defendant No.7 who inturn inducted one Mruthyunjayan as partner in his business. The defendant No.7 went on paying rent of the schedule premises to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. It appears that Hussain Beig executed mortgage deed dated 03.9.1977 in respect of schedule property in favour of defendant No.7-V.R.Narayanamurthy by obtaining loan amount of Rs.20,000/-without redemption of earlier mortgage, behind the back of the plaintiff. Hussain Beig filed a suit for redemption of mortgage against defendant No. 7 and one Mruthyunjayan in O.S.No.613/1992 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chintamani, without impleading the plaintiff. Suit came to be decreed directing the defendants to redeem the schedule property in favour of Hussain Beig by judgment and decree dated 06 08.1997. Ultimately, in R.S.A.No.327/2000 the judgment and decree in O.S.No.613/1992 was set aside and the suit came to be remanded for fresh disposal. When the suit was remanded for fresh disposal, the suit was withdrawn. In the meanwhile, Hussain Beig died. His legal representatives, the appellants herein filed O.S. No. 120/2004 against defendant No.7-V.R. Narayanamurthy and Mruthyunjayan for ejectment and delivery of possession of the schedule property without the knowledge of the plaintiff though defendant No.7 was tenant under plaintiff and there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between Hussain Beig and defendant No.7. Suit came to decreed, R.A.No.4/2010 filed by defendant No.7 against the judgment and decree came to be dismissed. R.S.A.No.2739/2010 filed against judgment and decree in R.A.No.4/2010 also came to be dismissed by granting two months time to the tenant-defendant No.7 to deliver the vacant possession. Accordingly, the possession was obtained from defendant No.7 by the appellants herein who are the legal representatives of Hussain Beig. After coming to know of the evil design, the plaintiff/mortgagee N.N. Venkatramanaswamy filed O.S.No.5/2008 against legal representatives of Hussain Beig defendant Nos.6(a) to (k) (hereinafter referred to as 'appell