The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration under S. 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is maintainable, and the subsisting title of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit should not have been lost, thus not barred by time.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-11-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, mandya, in RA No. 242 of 1973, on his file, allowing the appeal, on reversing the judgment and decree dt. 19-9-1973 passed by the Munsiff, Krishnarajapet, in OS No. 140 of 1971, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF instituted a suit against the defendant praying for a decree that the land sold to the defendant in Sy. No. 267/1 of Krishnarajepet was only to the extent of 2 guntas and not 6 guntas and, consequently, he sought for and direction to the revenue authorities in Krisbnarajapet to make corrections in the Record of Rights and Index of Land Registei etc. and also prayed for costs. According to the plaintiff, the land bearing sy. No. 267/1 situated in Krishnarajapet measuring 1 acre and 12 1/2 guntas belonged to the plaintiff. Out of the said extent 13 guntas were acquired for construction of A. K. Hostel and the plaintiff sold 2 guntas from north to one K. J. Boralinge Gowda and, immediately to the south of that, he sold 2 guntas to the defendant by a registered sale deed dated 19-5-1968. Though 2 guntas were actually sold, the defendant, in collusion with the revenue Authorities, got managed to get an entry made for 6 guntas and, hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT denied the plaint averments by filing his written statement. While admitting the extent mentioned in the sale deed as 2 guntas, be contended tbat the land was not actually measured at the time of sale, but boundaries were mentioned. Defendant constructed a house and an 'oppara' in the land sold to him to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Plaintiff accepted the said construction of the house and 'oppara' by taking mortgage of the land conveyed to defendant by the sale deed (Ex. P 1 ). The mortgage deed is at ex. D 1. Hence, he asserted that plaintiff could not bring the suit for declaration and consequential relief.

( 4 ) THE 0trial Court raised the following issuees as arising from the pleadings : (1) Does the defendant prove that what was sold to him under the registered sale deed is the entire extent within the boundaries ? (2) Does the plaintiff prove that he is entitled to get the entries in the Record of rights Register rectified ? (3) Does the plaintiff prove that his suit is in time ? (4) What relief ?

( 5 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, answered Issue No. 1 in the negative and against defendant. It answered Issues Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff and, in that view, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant went up in appeal before the civil Judge, Mandya, In RA No. 242 of 1973, on his file. The learned Civil Judge, in the course of his judgment raised the following points, as arising from the arguments addressed before him, for his consideration in the appeal : (1) Whether the plaintiff/respondent has sold the extent of 2 guntas or whether the land mentioned within the boundaries in the sale deed ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration which he has sought for ?

( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge, re-assessing the evidence on record, answered all the points against the plaintiff and, in that view, he allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has instituted the above second appeal before this Court.

( 7 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously urged before me that S. 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act provides for a suit for declaration under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act in case any person has grievance ag