DURGAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. CHINNAMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22/03/2003, passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Davanagere, in O.S. No. 43/1993 which has been confirmed by the District Judge, Davanagere, in R.A. No. 41/2003.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 43/1993, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that the document dated 20/04/1963 is a sham document and not acted upon. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 30/01/2006 has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, this second appeal.

(3.) INITIALLY the defendants 1 and 4 have filed common written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the plaintiffs were aware that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No. 4 from defendant No. 1 through registered sale deed in the month of May 1992. Defendant No. 4 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit is barred by limitation and bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties.