In view of the inter-connectivity of the above proceedings, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard simultaneously and this common judgment is rendered.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties are mentioned as referred to in the plaint.

3. Following are the allegations in short available in the plaint:-

3(a). The first plaintiff is son of Dittakavi Veerabhadra Murthy. The second plaintiff is son of Kandukuri Rama Krishna Rao and the third plaintiff is son of Kandukuri Pulla Rao. The second and third plaintiffs are represented by their power of attorney K.V.S.Prasad. The property situate in Plot No.A4A, S.No.96 part and 97 part of Kodambakkam Village, measuring about 3 grounds and 480 sq.ft. more fully described in the schedule was originally purchased by Smt.M.Lakshmi Devi, wife of Sathyanarayanan by a deed of sale dated 25.10.1066 from Madras State Housing Board. Ever since the said purchase she was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same as its absolute owner. Smt. Lakshmi Devi bequeathed the said property in favour of the plaintiffs to be shared equally among themselves, by a registered Will dated 15th October, 1973. Smt.Lakshmi Devi had no issues. The first plaintiff was the foster son of one Lakshmi Kanthamma with whom the said Lakshmi Devi lived till her last days and the second and third plaintiffs are the son of Lakshmi Devi's brother. The said Lakshmi Devi died at Madras on 19.10.1973 and her husband predeceased her. Thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained letters of administration with the Will annexed in respect of the property described in the schedule as per the order dated 11.02.1994 passed in O.P.No.752 of 1993. Thus, they have become the absolute owners of the suit property and no one else has any right, title or interest in the said property. While so, the defendants knowing fully well that they have no right, title or interest in the said property and that they were in no way related either to Smt.Lakshmi Devi or her husband Satyanarayana, are now with the criminal intention or grabbing the property, trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. In fact, one Pandian alias Bandha Pandian originally tried to stake a claim in respect of the scheduled property and filed a O.P. for grant of probate through the first defendant stating that the first defendant is the adopted son of deceased Lakshmi Devi by producing a forged and false Will and the said O.P. was dismissed by this Court. In the said O.P. the third defendant himself represented as the husband of the said Lakshmi Devi claimed interest in the schedule property and opposed the grant of probate. Having failed in his attempt, the said Bandha Pandian tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit on 30.09.1992 before the II Asst. City Civil Judge, Madras, for a permanent injunction restraining the said Bandha Pandian and his agents, servants, etc. from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs. Since the said Bandha Pandian died, the plaintiffs were advised to file the present comprehensive suit for declaration and also for injunction.

3(b). While so, to their utter shock and surprise, the plaintiffs came across a public notice in the issue of The Hindu dated 30.07.1994 stating that the fourth defendant purchased the scheduled property from Lakshmi Devi. As the said Smt. Lakshmi Devi died on 19.10.1973, it is not known as to how and from whom the fourth defendant had purchased the said property. Since the alleged vendor of the fourth defendant is not the person who owned the scheduled property, the plaintiffs sent a reply notice to the Advocate of the defendant stating that the sale deed is not valid and not at all binding on the plaintiffs and called for further details as to the name of the vendor, purchaser and other particulars of the said transacti