V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to as in the Trial Court.

( 2 ) THE 7th defendant was impleaded in the suit and the cause title was amended. After service of notice, he filed written statement but thereafter remained ex parte before the Trial Court. However, while issuing the certified copy, the 7th defendant has been omitted in the cause title. Hence, he was not made a party before the first Appellate court as well as in this second appeal. Since he was a party in the suit and had been duly served, the result of this appeal shall bind upon him.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 74 of 1990 against the defendants for possession of 19 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 216 of rampur Village in Raichur Taluk, which is the suit schedule property. Rangamma, the mother of 7th defendant was the Inamdar of the said land. After her death, the 7th defendant succeeded to the property. Occupancy rights was granted in his name under Certain Inams Abolition act, 1977 on 30-12-1981. Bhimsen Rao, the father of the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property from the 7th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 28-1-1982. After his death, the plaintiffs discontinued possession of the suit schedule property. However, defendants 1 to 6 came into possession of the same. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement denying title of plaintiffs to the suit land. A plea was taken that the sale deed in favour of father of the plaintiffs was a forged document. Another plea taken was that the vendor had no title. It is the case of the defendants that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and in the partition that took place in the year 1980 the suit property fell to the share of defendants 5 and 6 and they sold the same in favour of defendants 1 to 4.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Both the parties led evidence by examining witnesses and producing documents. On appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 25-7-1997. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs in R. A. No. 22 of 1997 against the dismissal of the suit was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court by its judgment dated 19-3-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

( 5 ) THIS appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. (A) Whether the Courts below were right in holding Ex. P. 3, the registered sale deed as requiring compulsory attestation and accordingly holding that the plaintiffs had not established their title to the suit property for non-examination of the attestors to the sale deed Ex. P. 3? (B) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs had not proved execution of Ex. P. 3 though the vendor of Ex. P. 3, defendant 7 had clearly admitted the execution and attestation of Ex. P. 3?

( 6 ) NOTICES of this appeal were sent to defendants twice but they returned with endorsement "no such persons". On 12-8-1999 for the reasons recorded by this Court on the submission made that they had been served in the same address before the Courts below, service was held sufficient. That is the reason for non-appearance of the defendants in this Court.

( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants and pe-1 rused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

( 8 ) THE defendants have admitted the regrant order in favour of the 7th defendant. The Trial Court at paragraph 20 of its judgment has refused to consider Ex. P. 2, the copy of the regrant order on the ground that it was a xerox copy and neither the original nor certified copy of the same was produced. On this ground it refused to accept the same and held that since the same was not proved, the plaintiffs' father had no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document