1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4th April 2000 passed in O.S.No.35/1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff granting relief of declaration as well as possession in respect of 18 guntas of the suit schedule land from defendant Nos.25 to 35 and declining to grant decree of permanent injunction.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The pedigree of the family is clearly set out in schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint which is not in dispute.

4. The land bearing R.S.No.1389 originally measured 23 acres 36 guntas. It was owned by one Thakkoji. Thakkoji had five sons by name Omanna, Narayan, Parashram, Neelu and Meenaji. None were alive at the time of filing of the suit. The case of the plaintiffs is, during the lifetime of Thakkoji, he executed a registered will with respect to entire R.S.No.1389 situated in Kangrali village of Belgaum Taluk. Under the said will, R.S.No.1389 was bequeathed in favour of Meenaji, his last son. This will was executed when his sons were alive. Meenaji son of Tukkoji died in about 1926. At the time when the will was executed on 10.11.1890, R.S.No.1389 was not sub-divided. On 27.01.1926 Meenaji died. By virtue of M.E. No.995, name of his eldest son Yeshwant meenjai Kangralkar was entered. Yeshwant's name was shown with respect to R.S.No.1389/1. The said land, which was bequeathed in favour of Meenaji, was the exclusive property of the deceased Meenaji Thakkoji Kangralkar. None of his brothers had any right, title and interest in the said land.

5. After the death of Omanna son of Thakkoji, his two sons Ramachandra Omanna Kangralkar and Venku Omanna Kangralkar got their names entered with respect to 15 acres 21 guntas out of Sy.No.1389 i.e., R.S.No.1389/2. For entering their names, no notices were issued to any sons of Meenaji. The said entries of of names of Ramchandra and Venku was without even following any principles of natural justice or without following any of the mandatory requirements of law. The said entry did not confer any right, title or interest upon the deceased Ramchandra Omanna Kangralkar or Venku Omanna Kangralkar. Consequently, the right, title and interest of sons of deceased Meenaji never affected in any manner.

6. After the death of Meenaji, all the properties which were possessed by Meenaji were managed by his eldest son Yeshwant. Meenaji had five sons viz., Yeshwant, Balwant, Shivaji, Thakkoji and Kashinath. Yeshwant died in the year 1973, Balwant died in 1936, Shivaji died in 1982, Thakkoji son of Meenaji died in 1958 and Kashinath died in 1962.

7. On 19.12.1956, the legal representatives of the deceased Meenaji got divided their properties. In the said partition, R.S.No.1389 and 1390 came to be allotted to the share of Kashinath son of Meenaji Kangralkar, who is the father of the present plaintiffs 2 to 5. These plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the suit property inheriting the same after the death of Yeshwant son of Meenaji Kangral. After the partition, the present plaintiffs have sold an area of 7 acres 22 guntas which is numbered as 1389/1. Kashinath died in 1962 and at that time, the relationship of plaintiffs herein with the defendants was cordial. At the time of selling R.S.No.1389/1, defendant No.1 Omanna Venku Kangralkar and Bharmanna Bhimarao Kangralkar played dominant role in settling the said sale transaction. Therefore, they have attested the sale deed as witnesses. In the year 1967, though the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were majors, still then they were ignorant of the realities of legal transaction and consequences of executing any documents and writing the contents on any documents. Plaintiff No.1 though she was a party to the document, all the while she remained a household woman and also she was ignorant about the procedure of writing documents or the legal implications in any document. In view of this ignorance on the part of the plaintiffs,