ABDUL RASHEED Vs. HULIGEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the Appellants. A suit was filed by them for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property described in the schedule to the plaint. The suit was contested by the Respondents/Defendants by filing written statement. The Defendants denied the claim of the Plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and by referring to the proceedings in O.S. No. 151/1985 and Misc. Case No. 99/1986 pleaded the bar of res-judicata. The Defendants also questioned the locus standi of the Plaintiffs to maintain the suit. Noticing the material pleadings of the parties, 15 issues were raised by the Trial Court on 7.10.2006. Issue Nos. 10 and 12 were treated as preliminary issues. The said issues were answered in the affirmative without any trial having been taken place in the suit. As a result, suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have filed this Appeal.

(2.) Sri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that, Trial Court was not justified in answering issue No. 10 and 12 in affirmative in the absence of any evidence having been placed on record by the Defendants. Learned Counsel contends that the impugned decree is highly erroneous and illegal. Sri. F.V. Patil, learned Counsel for Respondents, on the other hand made submissions in support of the impugned judgment and decree.

(3.) We have perused the records. Keeping in view the rival contentions, the point that arise for consideration is: