V. JAGANNATHAN, J:

1. The defendants in the Trial Court are the appellants herein and the challenge is to the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, and declaring the respondents as the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possessions and the consequent order of permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the respondents” peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2. The facts as could be seen from the pleadings of the parties to a considerable extent are not in dispute and so also the relationship among the parties interse. In shorts, the plaintiffs sought for the declaration to the effect that they are the absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which measures 28 acres and 9 guntas of land situated at Chikkellor Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, situated in S.Nos. 72 to 75, 82 and 83, and it was their case before the Trial Court that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one Basavaiah @ Besave Gowda, father of plaintiffs-3 to 6 and father=in-law of plaintiff-1 and grand-father of plaintiff-2, and he said Basavaiah had agreed to sell the suit land to one Hanumaiah, father of defendants-2 to 8 and father-in-law of defendant-1, and the said Hanumaiah filed the suit in O>S.No.39/1969for specific performance against the aforesaid Basavaiah and the suit came to be decreed on 30.3.1971 and in the execution proceedings viz, Execution Case No.343/1971, said Hanumaiah sought for execution of the sale deed and accordingly, the sale deed was executed on 15.11.1971 in favour of aid Hanumaiah through the Court and Hanumaiah was in possession of the suit land thereafter, following delivery of possession to him.

3. Later, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No. 133/1974 seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.NO. 39/1969 and the said suit was dismissed and so was the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in R.A.NO. 8/1978, however, the Court recorded a finding while dismissing the suit as well as the appeal that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land from 1974-75 to 1975-76, the plaintiffs, therefore, contended that, following the death of Hanumaiah, Basavaiah took possession and thereafter, the plaintiffs have been in continuous but unauthorized open possession and enjoyment of the suit land exercising all the rights adverse to all others and by virtue of continuous possession, the plaintiffs had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession.

4. While admitting the fact of defendants-1 to 8 having executed a sale deed in favour of defendants-9 and 10, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants tried to interfere with their possession of the suit property leading to police complaints being lodged and criminal cases also being filed against the plaintiffs and contending further that the plaintiffs were in continuous possession for a period of 12 years next before filing of the suit, and also stating that in the suit land, they have raised certain crops, a prayer was made to declare them as the absolute owners by contending that the cause of action arose after the death of Hanumaiah and also after dismissal of the appeal in R.A.Nos. 8/1980 and 8/1978 as well as on 30.4.2000 when the appellants herein tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit schedule property. In addition to the relief of declaration, the plaintiffs also sought an order of permanent injunction against the appellants herein.

5. Defendants-9 and 10 filed their written statement in common, which was adopted by the other defendants and, while admitting the relationship interse between the parties to the suit and also the factum of the father of defendants-2 to 8 and father-in-law of defendant-1, it was contended that said Hanumaiah had filed the suit in O.S.No.39/1969, which ultimately led to the sa