( 1 ) THE original appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri on 1-3-1988 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri dated 12-10-1984 dismissing the suit for possession of the suit property.

( 2 ) THE facts involved in this dispute are thus - original suit was filed by one Jainuddin Mohamad Yusuf Mulla and others. It was averred by the plaintiffs that they and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were successors-in-title of one Mahamad. It was further alleged that the landed property, which was subject matter in the suit, bearing Survey No. 21 Hissa no. 21 to the extent of 2 gunthas of village Jambhri was owned by father of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had common interest in the suit properties, but said defendants were not present when the suit was filed so they were made formal parties to the suit. It was alleged that the land in question was owned by father of plaintiff No. 1, who was father-in-law of the present plaintiff and father of defendants 2 and grand-father of plaintiff No. 3, defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The said Mahamad Yusuf Babasaheb Mulla had purchased the suit property in the year 1939 under the registered sale deed. Even prior to the said sale deed the suit property was in possession and Vahiwat of said mahamad Mulla. In the said suit property there was one building. After the death of Mahamad Mulla, the present plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have inherited the suit property. At present the said building is given Grampanchayat no. 279. The present suit is in respect of the said property along with its open space on its four sides is filed. The defendant No. 1 is resident of Dingani in Tal. Sangameshwar. He does not own any property at Jambhari. He had come to jambhari in order to start the grocery shop about 30 years prior to the suit and had taken the said suit house on rent at the rate of Rs. 51/- per year and accordingly he was running the said shop in the said suit house. Later on for the convenience, he had constructed temporary Padavi in the said suit house and accordingly he was running the said business in the suit premises for many years. However, during the said period, behind the back of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 to 4, the defendant No. 1 had managed to enter his name in the said land bearing Survey No. 21, Hissa No. 21. He also had managed to enter his name to the said Grampanchayat house taking advantage of the fact that he had constructed the said Padavi. As he had managed to enter his name as tenant, in respect of the said land bearing Survey No. 21, Hissa No. 21 and the proceeding under section 32-G of the B. T. and A. L. Act was started. However, the said proceeding was decided against the defendant No. 1. All these things were carried out behind the back of the plaintiffs as per the provisions of B. T. and A. L. Act, by managing the said proceeding. When the plaintiffs came to know about the same, they preferred an appeal and the said order was cancelled. Thus it is clear that, defendant No. 1 had tried to enter the said suit property falsely in his name as owner, hence the plaintiffs came with the contention that they want possession of the suit property from the defendant No. 1 and hence filed the suit against the defendant No. 1 for possession of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 challenged the suit denying the allegations raised by the plaintiffs. According to his case he had no idea as on today, whether mahamad Mulla had purchased the property in the year 1930 and that even prior to the said sale deed he was in possession thereof. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had no right, title and interest in the suit property after the death of Mahamad Mulla. According to him, property bearing Grampanchayat No. 279 is constructed by him by spending his own amount with full knowledge of the plaintiffs and defe