JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant (died during pendency of appeal) is the plaintiff in the lower Court. She filed suit for cancellation of sale deed No.653 of 1994 dated 28.03.1994, which was executed by the defendants 1 to 4 who are her sons in favour of defendants 5 and 6 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.10.37 guntas in Sy.No.123, situated at Nagireddypally village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Randgareddy District and further to direct defendants 5 and 6 to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was purchased by her husband on 19.03.1971 and thereafter, he died intestate on 05.12.1989. The plaintiff and her sons succeeded to the suit schedule property. However, in the month of December 2005, the plaintiff obtained certified copy of the revenue records and found that the entire extent of the suit schedule property was sold to the defendants 5 and 6 by her sons, who are defendants 1 to 4. The suit was filed on 03.03.2006.

3. Learned trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the sale deed dated 28.03.1994 is null and void and not binding on her?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to delivery of possession of the schedule property as prayed for?

iii) Whether the defendants 5 & 6 have agreed to give the share of the plaintiff in the schedule property as alleged by the defendants 1 to 4?

iv) Whether the defendants 1 to 4 sold the suit property in favour of the defendants 5 & 6 vide registered sale deed dated 28.02.1994 with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff?

v) Whether the suit claim is hit by limitation?

vi) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action?

vii) To what relief?

4. The defendants 1 to 4, who are sons of plaintiff, their version is that while executing sale deed in the year 1994, the defendants 5 and 6 promised to pay the plaintiff the extent of share of her property. Trial Court found that when it is the claim of the plaintiff that all the original link documents were in her possession, her version that she came to know about the sale in the year 2005 after verifying the revenue records is false. She was having knowledge about the sale by her sons and if the version of the defendants 1 to 4 is to be believed that money due to the plaintiff would be given, they would not have waited for nearly 12 years until filing of the suit. Having found that on facts, the issues 1 to 4 were answered against the plaintiff. Further, issue No.5 regarding limitation, the Court found that the suit was filed beyond three years and barred by limitation.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Court below, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. During the pendency of appeal she died on 26.02.2020. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the main suit, who are sons of plaintiff and appellant herein, filed petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2023 under Order 23 Rule 1-A r/w Section 151 CPC to transpose them as appellants in view of death of the appellant/plaintiff, who is their mother.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is averred as follows:

“..that the present appeal filed by the petitioner’s mother Akula Basamma, who died on 26.02.2020 leaving behind this petitioners/proposed appellant Nos.2 to 5, as her only surviving legal heirs and to that effect memo along with death certificate is filed, as such the said appeal has been filed against this petitioner

and other. As such this petitioners arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the main appeal as a matter of fact in view of the death of main appellant i.e., Akula Basamma who is the petitioner’s mother herein, the petitioners being the L.R’s of the appellant, therefore, transpose these petitioners as appellant Nos.2 to 5 in the main appeal in view of the death of main appellant Akula Basamma, otherwise the petitioner shall stand to suffer loss and damage.

Therefore, under the above circumstances, for proper adjudication of th