These three appeals and Cross Objection arise out of Judgment rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Beed in suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. (Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1973).

2. For sake of convenience, the parties may be referred to by their nomenclature in the trial Court. First Appeal No. 748 of 1977 (APP-I) is preferred by original defendant Nos. I to 8. First Appeal No. 618 of 1979 (APPII) is preferred by original defendant Nos. 9 and 10, who are housing societies. First Appeal No. 257 of 1979 (APP-IlI) was preferred by original plaintiff No.3 Fatema Begum. She died during pendency of the appeals and nothing significant has remained to be decided in her appeal. Cross-Objection is preferred by original plaintiffs. They impugn a part of the decree regarding refusal of mesne profits. The appellants in APP-I and APP-Il seek to impugn Judgment and decree for possession. Deceased appellant in APP-III had impugned rejection of her claim as a co-owner for recovery of her share.

3. Original plaintiffs have died and their legal representatives have been substituted in their stead. Deceased plaintiff No. I - Abdul Sattarkhan was a Superintending Engineer in Andhra Pradesh and used to reside at Hyderabad during tenure of his service. Deceased plaintiff No.2 - Abdul Jabbarkhan was a Driver employed in M.S.R.T.C. He used to reside at Beed. Original plaintiff No.

3 - Fatima Begum was a widow and mother of deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who were real brothers inter se.

4. The dispute relates to land Survey No. 30/1, admeasuring 18 acres, 24 gunthas and Survey No. 31, admeasuring 20 acres, 36 gunthas, situated at Beed.

It appears that the suit lands were previously in the outskirts of the township but during passage of time, now they are within the limits of the township and surrounded by localities.

5. Admittedly, the suit lands were held by deceased Abdul Gaffarkhan, who was father of original plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3. He died somewhere in 1940-42 and thereafter, the suit lands came in the hands of the'plaintiffs. The deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 each were having seven annas share, whereas deceased plaintiff No.3 was having two annas share as per tenets of the Mohammedan law. Since original plaintiff No.3 - Fatima Begum died during pendency of the appeals, now her share would devolve upon the two branches of the original plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. They would take equal shares.

6. Original defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are legal representatives of deceased Limbaji Navale, who was real brother of original defendant No.8 - Gyandev Navale. They claimed their rights in respect of the suit lands on basis of alleged agreement of sale executed by the deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. It is an admitted fact that deceased Limbaji and deceased defendant No.8 - Gyandeo alienated the suit lands in favour of original defendant Nos. 9 and 10, by virtue of two different sale deeds. The members of these housing societies have constructed dwelling houses over the plots allotted to them.

7. The deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 filed suit for recovery of possession in respect of the suit lands and also for mesne profits at rate of Rs. 1,500/- p.a. alleging that the defendants illegally dispossessed them somewhere in June, 1970. They averred that the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 had set up a false claim for injunction and had filed a suit (R.C.S. No. 98 of 1969) alleging that there was an agreement of sale dated 10-8-1951 between the parties and the suit lands were delivered into their possession on basis of such agreement. The original defendant Nos. 1 and 8 had contended in their suit (R.C.S. No. 98 of 1969) that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, sale permission was also granted but, the deceased plaintiff No.2 - Abdul Jabbarkhan had caused illegal obstruction in their possession. It was alleged that the deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to alienate suit lands for