JUDGMENT :

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.

Since all these appeals are arising out of Common Judgment and decree dated 31.12.2015 in O.S.No.821 of 2010, O.S.No.264 & 265 of 2012 passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

2. Originally, the appellants/plaintiffs filed OS No.821 of 2010 under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein against 36 defendants, O.S.No.264 of 2012 is filed by respondents 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 & 19 herein and O.S.No.265 of 2012 is filed by respondents 3 to 7, 15, 16 & 36 herein under order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the respective schedules.

3. A.S.No.610 of 2016 is filed by the appellants against dismissal of suits in judgment and decree in OS No.821 of 2010, A.S.No.530 of 2016 is filed against judgment and decree in OS No.264 of 2012 and A.S.No.539 of 2016 is filed against judgment and decree in OS NO.265 of 2012 dated 31.12.2015, allowing the suits.

4. During pendency of the appeal, the 2nd appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as per the orders dated 29.04.2021 in I.A.Nos.1 of 2019 in A.S.Nos.610, 530 & 539 of 2016 as appellants 10 & 11. Likewise, 2nd respondent died and his legal representative was brought on record as respondent No.37 as per the orders of this Court dated 08.03.2017 in AS MP No.423 of 2017.

5. Since the parties and the schedule properties are one and the same in all these appeals, and the A.S.No.610 of 2016 being the comprehensive appeal arising out of OS No.821 of 2010, for the sake of convenience, facts and the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in OS No.821 of 2010 for disposal of these appeals.

6. Originally the suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 5 against 35 defendants. During the pendency of suit consequent to the death of the 5th plaintiff, his legal heirs, who are his wife and children joined as the plaintiffs 6 to 9. The defendant No. 36 was added consequent to the death of the defendant No.3 Mr. P. Mallikarjuna Rao. Brief facts, which are germane for disposal of these appeals are as follows:

7. The 1stplaintiff is the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, who claims to be the actual owner and possessor of plaint "A" schedule property admeasuring Acs.5.02 guntas and the 5th plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of plaint "B" schedule property admeasuring Acs.8.35 guntas, respectively total admeasuring Acs.10.02 guntas, in Sy.Nos.279 and 284, situated at Puppalguda village, Rajendernagar Mandal (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘subject property’)and that out of a total extent of Ac.10-02 guntas in S.No.279, an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas is acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the formation of outer ring road project and the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been in the deposit of OP Nos.1197/2007 ad 1203/2007 on the file of I and II Additional DistrictCourts, Ranga Reddy District.

8. The entire land in Sy.No. 279, 281 to 287 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R District totally admeasuring Ac.85.21 guntas constituted the private estate of the erstwhile Hyderabad State namely Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung and those lands are being cultivated since generations by Scheduled Caste peasants of which the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 5 were among them and that the respective fathers of the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 have cultivated those lands along with other cultivators as tenants and after their demise, the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 continued to be in possession and that their names were mutated in the revenue records by recognizing their possession and that the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 being the sons of plaintiff No.1 also peacefully holding the possession of plaint "A" schedule property. The names of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 5 along with other Sch