The appellant/defendant 1 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1998 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandya, which has been confirmed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Mandya in

R.A. No. 28 of 1998, dated 7-3-2002.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs who are the son and mother, have filed suit before Trial Court against defendants seeking for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit property bearing Sy. No. 29, measuring 21 guntas situated at Kyathangere Village of Mandya Taluk. It is the case of plaintiffs that first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as absolute owner; that second defendant got changed katha and RTC in favour of plaintiffs during the year 1981-82 and since then they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties; that defendants 1 and 2 were the husband and wife and out of difference between them had filed O.S. No. 158 of 1995 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandya, wherein the suit properties were also subject-matter of the said suit, however they have compromised the said suit and plaintiffs came to know the said compromise decree when they went to village office to pay the kandayam; that they are not bound by the decree in O.S. No. 158 of 1995. Hence, they filed the suit seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. On appearance before Trial Court defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement separately contending that they had filed suit in O.S. No. 158 of 1995 and the same was compromised and that plaintiffs are bound by the said decree; that first defendant is the legally wedded wife of second defendant and they got three daughters and a son; that second defendant neglected and deserted first defendant and her children as such she filed a suit in O.S. No. 279 of 1989 seeking for maintenance and creation of charge and it was decreed by creating charge on the suit properties, subsequently first defendant also filed O.S. No. 158 of 1995 against second defendant for partition and separate possession of family properties; that the said suit was compromised and suit schedule properties and other properties fell to the share of first defendant and her daughters towards satisfaction of maintenance and also towards their share; that they became absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit properties and other properties as per the compromise decree; that suit properties were the ancestral properties of second defendant and that his father passed away in 1947-48 leaving the second defendant as his only son and his legal heir; that the marriage of second plaintiff took place long back and she has no right, title or whatsoever in the suit property; that mutation and change of katha are fraudulent and concocted and they do not confer right, title or interest to plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties; that mutation is done in collusion and behind the back of defendant 1 and no weight can be attached to the said document; that plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties at any time and defendant 1 and her children are in possession of suit lands and it is also contended that the children of first defendant are necessary and proper parties to the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court in all framed 7 issues. To prove their case on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff 1 was examined as P.W. 1 and documents-Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 came to be marked. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, defendant 1 examined herself as D.W. 1 and also got examined D.Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked documents-Exs. D. 1 to D. 12. The Trial Court on the basis of the material evidence placed before it decreed the suit of plaintiffs declaring them to be the owners of suit schedule properti