The appellants father purchased the aforesaid two plots under a registered sale deed from Galappa in 1917.
In the meantime Saibanna, the brother of Galappa, was inducted as a tenant.
2 had denied the title of the plaintiffs appellants and the revenue companyrt directed the plaintiffs to get their redress by filing a suit in the civil companyrt.
The disputed plots admittedly belonged to one Galappa.
The appellants, therefore, filed an application for recovery of the said amount in the companyrt of the Tahsildar.
She went up in appeal but the same was dismissed and the parties were directed to approach the civil companyrt for a proper redress of the grievances.
In that proceeding Saibanna, however, denied the title of the appellants as also the tenancy.
The Tahsildar, however, negatived her claim and came to the companyclusion after investigation that Tayamma executed a sale deed and number a mortgage deed in favour of the appellants father.
Saibanna has since eddied and he is number represented by his son Shivappa.
In 1919 Tayamma filed an application before the Tahsildar alleging that she executed only a mortgage deed and number a sale deed in favour of the appellants father.
Indeed, when the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and the tenancy the plaintiffs filed the present suit treating them to be trespassers and the suit is number on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs appellants had numberoption but to file the suit.
The father of the appellants died and he was succeeded by the appellants Saibanna companytinued to pay the rent for sometime but thereafter he fell in arrears for the period 1951 to 1954.
The suit was resisted by the defendants respondents on a number of grounds but it is number necessary to refer to all those pleas for the disposal of the present appeal.
They set up the bar of Sections 32 and 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
In 1932 the father of the appellants filed a suit for the declaration of his title and ownership in respect of the disputed lands against Galappa and his brother Saibanna which was decreed.
According to the defendants respondents the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try the suit on the own allegations made in the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiffs appellants had pleaded that defendant No.
In the circumstances the appellants were obliged to file a suit for possession and mesne profits treating the defendants respondents as trespassers.
The appellants also initiated proceedings for the companyrection of tenancy register and there also the tenant denied the title of the appellants.
One of the pleas though number specifically taken in the written statement but allowed by the companyrt to be urged was the question ot jurisdiction.
2 was the tenant of the disputed plots.
As Galappa was a minor at that time the sale deed was executed by his mother, Tayamma as a guardian.
The application for the recovery of arrears of rent as well as for the companyrection of tenancy register were dismissed and the appellants were directed to approach the civil companyrt as the dispute between the parties involved a question of title.
The trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt decreed the suit deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs appellants.
B. Misra, J. The dispute in the present appeal by special leave centers round survey plots No.
149 and 150 measuring 17 acres 23 gunthas and 11 acres and 35 gunthas respectively at Yadgir, District Gulbarga.
