Result: Appeal rejected.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff who had filed O.S. No.205/2002 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sri.Dn) Jamkhandi, seeking a Judgment and Decree against the defendant / respondents for declaring Sale Deeds dt.12.2.2001, executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, as illegal, null and void in respect of suit properties and an order of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 6, not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff has filed this Appeal.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 is his younger brother and defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the purchasers of suit lands bearing R.S. No.10/1, measuring 5 guntas; R.S No.11/1, measuring 7.02 acres and R.S. No. 30/3 measuring 06 guntas, in which defendant No.1 has half-share in four-fifth of the said lands. Similarly fifth defendant is also purchaser of lands bearing R.S. No. 14/1, measuring 5.05 Acres; R.S. No. 14/3, measuring 5.05 Acres, and R.S. No. 13/3 measuring 3.27 Acres, in which defendant No.1 has half share in four-fifth of the said lands. Sixth defendant is purchaser of lands bearing R.S. No. 13/1, measuring 13.37 Acres; R.S.No. 11/2 measuring 7.36 Acres in which the defendant No.1 has half-share in four-fifth of the said lands. All the sale deeds were registered on 12.2.2001, before the Sub-Registrar, Mudhol, for a valuable consideration. According to the plaintiff, the three younger sisters of the plaintiffs also sold their shares in the properties to one Siddappa Nagappa Patil, by registered sale deed dt.3.1.2000. Plaintiff had therefore filed O.S,. No. 78/2000, challenging the sale deeds executed by his sisters.

4. Infact, the sisters of the plaintiff had filed O.S. No.285/1989 for partition and separate possession which was decreed and they were allotted 3/15th share and half share out of 4/5th share was allotted to defendant No.1 and the said judgment and decree was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No. 3527/1999 and F.D.P. No. 13/1997, filed by the sisters of the plaintiff is pending. The suit schedule properties are part of the final decree proceedings. When the situation was thus, the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 205/2002 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Jamakhadi, sitting at Mudhol, District Bangalkot. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The plaintiff had also filed several other suits, against the defendants and others, the details of which are not relevant for the disposal of this Appeal.

5. Suit summons were served on all the defendants. Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 filed Written Statement admitting the relationship between the defendant No..1 and the plaintiff, and that defendant Nos.2 to 6 are purchasers of the suit land by sale deeds dt. 12.2.2001 and 13.2.2001 and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties purchased from defendant No.1, pursuant to a decree of partition and therefore the suit is not maintainable, as being barred by principles of res judicata. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 adopted the above written statement.

6. Based on the above proceedings, the Trial Court framed 10 Issues, which are as follows :

1. Whether the plaintiff proves the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 is illegal, null and void and not acted upon the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of suit ?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable as contended in the W.S. of defendants?

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?

6.