JUDGMENT : P.Sam Koshy, J. The instant is an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 . The challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2020, in O.S.No.1542 of 2013, passed by the Hon’ble V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. Heard Mr. M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. K. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs; and Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondents / defendant Nos.9, 11 and 12. 3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the Trial Court. 4. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and also for declaration of the sale deed dated 01.06.1964 as null and void. 5. The facts in nutshell leading to filing of the instant appeal are that the suit schedule property in the instant case is Survey No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 guntas situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition seeking 1/3 rd of the share in the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and 2/3 rd of the share to the defendants. Along with the said prayer, there was a prayer for separate possession and allot 1/3 rd share to the plaintiffs made by metes and bounds by appointing a Commissioner. The further prayer was for nullifying the revenue records and the entries made in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property from 1974-75 till the time the suit was filed. The further prayer was also to restore the name of Mr. Abdul Razzaq as the pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property, thereby deleting the name of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu. Pending the suit, the plaint was further amended seeking for quashment of the registered sale deed as on 01.06.1964 between Mr. Abdul Razzaq and Mr. K. Sri Ramulu. 6. The plaintiffs claim was on the basis of they being the legal heirs of one Smt. Yakoob Bee who was the daughter of late Mr. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 15 were the legal heirs of one Mr. Abdul Razzaq and Mr. K. Sri Ramulu. 6. The plaintiffs claim was on the basis of they being the legal heirs of one Smt. Yakoob Bee who was the daughter of late Mr. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 15 were the legal heirs of one Mr. Abdul Razzaq who was the son of the aforementioned Mr. Abdul Rehman. Thus, as per the plaintiffs, they as well as defendant Nos.1 to 15 are the legal heirs of Smt. Yakoob Bee and late Mr. Abdul Rehman. 7. According to the plaintiffs, the entire suit schedule property was in joint possession between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 15 and it was never partitioned. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for 1/3 rd of the share in the property which was in the name of late Mr. Abdul Rehman. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of late Mr. Abdul Rehman, since his son Mr. Abdul Razzaq was the elder male member in the family, the property stood mutated in his name. Subsequently, Mr. Abdul Rehman also died leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 15 and, Smt. Yakoob Bee, the mother of the plaintiffs, also died leaving behind the plaintiffs. Since the suit schedule property was the ancestral property, the sons and daughters of late Mr. Abdul Rehman also would be entitled for a share in the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, as per the Muslim personal law, the daughter would be entitled for 1/3 rd of the share in the suit schedule property and the son would be entitled for 2/3 rd of the share in the suit schedule property and, therefore, the plaintiffs sought for decree of partition accordingly. 8. The revenue record bears the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman in the Khasra pahanies between 1954-55 and 1960-61 and, therefore, it was the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman which was reflected in the revenue records till 1973-74. From 1975-76 onwards, in the revenue records it is the name of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu which is reflected, all of which, led to the plaintiffs also seeking for appropriate entries in the revenue entries through the suit for partition that was filed. 9. Abdul Rehman which was reflected in the revenue records till 1973-74. From 1975-76 onwards, in the revenue records it is the name of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu which is reflected, all of which, led to the plaintiffs also seeking for appropriate entries in the revenue entries through the suit for partition that was filed. 9. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs also sought for amendment in the suit by adding the relief of declaration of a sale deed bearing document No.346 of 1964 executed on 01.06.1964 also to be bad in law. The said document was a registered sale deed executed by Mr. Abdul Rehman, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 15, in favour of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu who is the father of defendant Nos.16 to 19. The defendant Nos.1 to 15, the legal heirs of late Mr. Abdul Rehman, initially were proceeded ex-parte; however, subsequently they entered appearance at a belated stage, but did not contest the case and filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos.16 to 19 entered appearance and disputed the entire claim of the plaintiffs right from the beginning i.e. questioning the status of the plaintiffs so far as being the legal heirs of late Smt. Yakoob Bee. So also, the defendant Nos.16 to 19 took the plea that the suit is highly belated and is otherwise not tenable as there was no evidence whatsoever available with the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim seeking for entitlement in the suit schedule property as a legal heir of late Mr. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar. The defendant Nos.16 to 19 also took the stand that the plaintiffs being fully aware of the registered sale deed in the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman w.e.f. 01.06.1964 have not challenged it almost for five (05) decades and they cannot now challenge the same, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. 10. Pending the trial, after the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court for deciding the claim putforth by the respective parties i.e. the plaintiffs and defendants: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the successors/Legal Representatives of the late.Abdul Rehman ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the property ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are the successors/Legal Representatives of the late.Abdul Rehman ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the property ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare the sale deed doc.No.346/1994 dt.01-06-1064 as null and void? 5. Whether entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property are illegal and arbitrary / 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 7. Whether the Court feed paid is correct ? 11. The plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.16 to 19 examined 3 witnesses i.e. DWs.1 to 3. Likewise, the plaintiffs marked 56 documents i.e. Ex.A1 to 35 and so far as the defendant Nos.16 to 19, they exhibited 62 documents i.e. Ex.B1 to 62 in support of their respective contentions. 12. The plaintiffs while challenging the impugned judgment contended that the impugned judgment is erroneous, contrary to law and also without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. It was also contended that the Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence of DW.1 who has supported the claim of defendant Nos.1 to 15 and, thus, has reached to an erroneous finding. It was also contended that the Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 while passing the impugned judgment. According to the plaintiffs, the finding of the registered sale deed dated 01.06.1964, in the name of K. Sri Ramulu being a genuine document, is bad in law inasmuch as the same is hit by Section 47 and 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 13. The further contention of the plaintiffs was alleging erroneous finding of the fact by the Trial Court in reaching to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 01.06.1964 being genuine executed between Mr. Abdul Rehman and Mr. K. Sri Ramulu and, with a further contention that, the sale deed is a fictitious document. Therefore, the same is liable to be declared null and void. 14. Though the defendant Nos.1 to 15 initially were proceeded ex parte; but later on they entered appearance and still did not chose to contest the case. Rather, went in not disputing or admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the same is liable to be declared null and void. 14. Though the defendant Nos.1 to 15 initially were proceeded ex parte; but later on they entered appearance and still did not chose to contest the case. Rather, went in not disputing or admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. This act on the part of defendant Nos.1 to 15 has rightly compelled the Trial Court to draw an adverse inference so far as the defendant Nos.1 to 15 being in collusion with the plaintiffs. 15. In the course of appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court found that Ex.A27 which was a certificate issued on 22.12.1913 certifying the marriage of Smt. Yakoob Bee on 25.10.1926; however, there was no basis on which the said certificate was issued after almost eight (08) decades from the actual date of marriage. Neither is the certificate revealing the actual source on the basis of which the certificate has been issued. Likewise, the Trial Court found that Ex.A28 also was one which was issued by the Wakf Board not having any cogent basis on which the said certificate Ex.A28 was issued. The reason to disbelieve was that, the Wakf Board itself was formed in the year 1954, therefore, it was difficult to have been in possession of records in 1926. So also Ex.A29, the death certificate is only a mere certificate issued by the Sarpanch who is otherwise not an authority to maintain the register pertaining to birth and death. Thus, the Trial Court found the material document establishing the relationship that Smt. Yakoob Bee had with the original pattedar late Mr. Abdul Rehman. In the absence of a cogent document in this regard, it was justified on the part of the Trial Court to reach to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed in leading evidence to show that they are legal heirs of Smt. Yakoob Bee and also Smt. Yakoob Bee being the daughter of late Mr. Abdul Rehman. 16. Further, the Trial Court also found that the sale deed under challenge was one which was executed on 01.06.1964 and the suit was filed in the year 2013 i.e. after a span of forty-nine (49) years. The revenue records also reflects that the mutation proceedings were also carried out in the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman. 16. Further, the Trial Court also found that the sale deed under challenge was one which was executed on 01.06.1964 and the suit was filed in the year 2013 i.e. after a span of forty-nine (49) years. The revenue records also reflects that the mutation proceedings were also carried out in the name of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu considering the fact that the age of the plaintiff at the relevant point was 74 years at the time of execution of the sale deed in the year 1964 and the time when the purchaser of the property Mr. K. Sri Ramulu had entered possession of the property, the plaintiff was around 25 years of age and he was a resident of the same village further goes to establish the case that in spite of the plaintiff being fully aware of the sale being made in the year 1964 and not challenging it for the next almost 50 years, establishes the fact that he was not aggrieved by the sale then made in favour of Mr. K.Sri Ramulu. After the death of Mr. K.Sri Ramulu, entries were made in the records bringing on record the names of defendant Nos.16 to 19, the legal heirs of Mr. K.Sri Ramulu. Further, from the records, what is also reflected is that PWs.2 and 3 though have been examined in favour of the plaintiffs, but there was not much which could be elicited by these two witnesses giving clarity and authenticity in respect of the claim raised by the plaintiffs or in order to substantiate their contentions put forth in their plaint. 17. Most of the documents which have been adduced by the plaintiffs to establish the relationship between Smt. Yakoob Bee and Mr. Abdul Rehman, were all documents obtained somewhere around the time when the civil suit was filed for the first time in the year 2013 and, therefore, the relevancy of these documents gets diminished unless there isno cogent documentary proof in this regard. 18. The plaintiffs, on the one hand, have not been able to establish the fact that they are the legal heirs of Smt. Yakoob Bee or for that matter the Mr. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar. They have also miserably failed to produce cogent material to show their continuous possessions vis-à-vis possession of the suit schedule property by defendant Nos.16 to 19. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar. They have also miserably failed to produce cogent material to show their continuous possessions vis-à-vis possession of the suit schedule property by defendant Nos.16 to 19. On the contrary, the defendants have been able to show the sale deed that was executed on 01.06.1964 where the name of purchaser through the sale deed dated 01.06.1964 was reflected in the revenue records after the death of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu. The legal heirs of defendant Nos.16 to 19 names have also been entered in pahanies, all of which go to show that the Trial Court has gone threadbare into the real crux of the matter and thrashed all the contentions put forth while reaching to the said conclusion. 19. Even in the first Appellate Court stage, the plaintiffs have not been able to improve upon their case with any other strong material other than that which was considered and trashed by the Trial Court in the course of passing the impugned judgment under challenge in the instant appeal. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal preferred by the plaintiffs calling for an interference to the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. The instant thus fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.