H. NAGARAJAPPA AND ASHOKA Vs. PURANDARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. 401/2004 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Shimoga have come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in rejecting their prayer for declaration and permanent injunction. In these proceedings, parties are referred to by their rank in the original suit for their convenience.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under:

(3.) IN the original suit, based on the pleadings in all 7 issues were framed. Four of them regarding the plea raised in the original suit that the sale deed dated 19.8.1968 was not acted upon, plaintiffs being in possession of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 96/2 openly, continuously and notoriously to the knowledge of the defendant and thereby perfecting their right and title against the defendant adverse to his rights and that his alleged interference to their enjoyment by the defendant, are all answered in the negative. So far as the issues based on the defense regarding suit being barred by limitation, whether nature of the suit being proper and also the issue regarding valuation are all answered in favour of defendant and against plaintiffs. The trial Court refused to accept the continuous possession of plaintiffs and their father in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 96/2 which was subject matter of sale deed dated 19.8.1968.