1. This is plaintiffs second appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Tumkur in RA No.125/2006 dated 2.7.2007, where under appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Tumkur, in OS No. 149/98 dated 3.2.2006 dismissing the suit came to be affirmed.

2. This Court by order dated 6.9.2011 has admitted the above appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of resjudicata by taking into consideration the earlier suits namely (1) OS:92/50-51, (2) OS:748/1968 and (3) OS:100/1983.?

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct in affirming the said judgment and decree.?

3. Heard Sri C.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant, Sri P.D. Surana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and 3, Sri Shanmugappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/caveator,Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 6, 8, 10 to 12. R4 and R5 were reported to be dead and their LRs. have been brought on record as R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11 and R12 and R6(b) is also reported to be dead.

4. The suit in question namely OS: 149/1998 (Old No.96/84 renumbered as OS No. 162/89) was filed by appellant herein seeking relief of declaration to declare that State Wakf Board is the owner in possession of the suit property which is bearing survey No.2, Gubbi, Kasaba Hobli, measuring 2 acres and 4 guntas as described in the plaint schedule and for further relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and said suit came to be filed by the Jamia Masjid, Gubbi represented by its President Sri Janab Hussain Khan. On service of suit summons defendants 2, 3 and 4 have appeared and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments as traversed in the said written statement. Defendant No.9 has filed separate written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial court has framed in all 9 issues and by order dated 16.6.2005 which was based on a memo filed by the defendants, it was ordered that issue Nos.5 & 6 would be treated as preliminary issues. Accordingly, issue Nos.5 & 6 was taken up for consideration by the trial court. The said two issues taken-up by the trial court as preliminary issues are:

(5) Whether the defendants 1 to 4 prove that the suit is hit by principles of respondent.?

(6) Whether the defendants 1 to 4 prove that the suit is barred by limitation.?

5. Trial court after considering the arguments advanced by respective learned advocates and by order dated 3.2.2006 answered issue No.5 in the affirmative and issue No. 6 in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by order of dismissal of the suit by trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal in RA 125/2006 before III Addl. District Judge, Tumkur. After considering the arguments of learned Advocates Lower Appellate Court by Judgment dated 2.7.2007 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of trial court.

7. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, plaintiff preferred appeal to this court in RSA No.2189/2007 (present appeal). After considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties this court by order dated 2.7.2008 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the court below and remanded the matter back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, made by this court defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 as the legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant filed SLP in Cvl. No.26047/2008 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Leave came to be granted and it was converted into Civil Appeal No.7240/2010. Defendants 3 & 4 had filed IA No. 1/2008 in this appeal (RSA 2189/2007) seeking recall o