H. BILLAPPA, J.-These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.03.2008, passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 1848/2000.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and has directed the defendants to vacate and hand over actual possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within one month. The enquiry regarding mesne profits also has been ordered.

3. Aggrieved by that, the appellants-defendants 1 to 7, 9 to 14, 16 and 17 have filed RFA. No. 596/2008. RFA. No. 1308/2008 has been filed by the State Bank of Mysore which is not a party to the proceedings.

4. The appellants in RFA No. 596/2008 are the defendants 1 to 7, 9 to 14, 16 and 17, the respondents 1 to4 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 5 and 6 are the defendants 8 and 15 before the Trial Court.

5. The parties will be referred to with reference to their rank in the original suit O.S. No. 1848/2000.

6. Briefly stated the facts are:

The respondents 1 to 4 i.e., the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 1848/2000 for recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendants and for mesne profits and interest on mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the suit schedule property bearing No. 79 and 80 (old Nos. 12 and 12A), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore. The plaintiffs leased out the suit schedule property in favour of the first defendant through registered lease-deed dated 3.7.1969. The period of lease was 32 years commencing from 14.3.1968. The first defendant is a registered partnership firm. The defendants 2 to 12, Smt. Sundarbai Thambre, Sri. S.N. Nanjundaiah and Sri. S.C. Gopalappa were the original partners. Before filing the suit, the plaintiffs obtained a copy of the Register of Firms. It shows that the first defendant-Firm is registered as No. 571/1969-70 on 22.8.1969. Fourteen persons i.e., the defendants 2 to 12, Smt. Sundarbai Thambre, Sri. S.N. Nanjundaiah and Sri. S.C. Gopalappa are shown as partners.

7. It is stated, the first defendant filed a false and fraudulent suit in O.S. No. 1641/2000 and obtained an order of ex parte injunction. The counsel for the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1641/2000 informed the fourth plaintiff in this case regarding filing of the suit and sent a copy of the plaint and other papers. From the plaint and other documents sent, the plaintiffs find that the first defendant-Firm was reconstituted under a deed dated 24.5.1995 and three new partners have been added. They are defendants 13 to 15. The plaintiffs are not admitting that the defendants 13 to 15 are partners. The plaintiffs have impleaded the defendants 16 and 17 as parties as their names were found in the extract of the Register of Firms as having joined the first defendant-Firm on 1.4.1977. The plaintiffs have not impleaded Smt. Sundarbai Thambre, Sri. S.N. Nanjundaiah and Sri. S.C. Gopalappa as it is stated that Smt. Sundarbai Thambre is retired and Sri. S.N. Nanjundaiah and Sri. S.C. Gopalappa are stated to have been dead.

8. The first defendant-Firm was constituted for carrying on the business of taking on lease the suit schedule property and the term of the partnership is co-terminus with the period of lease. The lease-deed entitled the first defendant-Firm to demolish the existing building and to put up such structure as they deem fit which shall not be less than 40,000 sq. ft. in area. At the end of lease period, the first defendant shall hand over the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs together with all buildings, fittings, fixtures etc., without any compensation. The lease-deed entitles the first defendant to grant sub-leases of the building either wholly or in part in favour of the third parties subject to the condition that the period of lease/sub-lease shall not extend beyond the period of lease i.e., 32 years from 14.3.1968. The first defendant alone is answerable to the plaintiffs. It i