1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the respondent declaring her to be the absolute owner and directing the appellants to hand over the possession of suit property, by setting aside the dismissal of her suit.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

The parties are referred as per their rank in the original proceedings for the sake of convenience.

The appellants herein are defendants 1 and 2 whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit property is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.46/1 measuring 2 acres 9.5 guntas situated within the village limits of Haraganapura described in the schedule to the plaint. The suit property is ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband by name Shivappa. In a partition between himself and his brother Somappa, the suit property fell to the share of Shivappa. Except the plaintiff, there were no other legal representatives at the time when Shivappa died. After the death of the plaintiff, his wife was enjoying the suit land having continued in possession. Few days earlier to the institution of suit as the defendants obstructed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, the plaintiff approached the revenue authorities and found the name of defendants in the record of rights and as the defendants had questioned the title of plaintiff over the suit property, she instituted the suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner and for injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff sought an amendment to the plaint stating that she was not able to obtain a temporary injunction during the pendency of suit and the defendants forcibly dispossessed her. Therefore, she also claimed the relief of possession of suit property from the defendants. The defendants filed the written statement denying the allegations made and they claimed that Puttathayamma was the second wife of Shivappa -the husband of plaintiff and a daughter by name Nagarathnamma was born to her. They also say that the said daughter was residing at Malayuru village. Hence, the defendants claim that the said Nagarathnamma and the second wife Puttathayamma are also the legal representatives of deceased Shivappa and they are necessary parties. It is also contended that the plaintiff and her husband Shivappa brought up one Mr.Nataraju of Honnegondanahalli village and performed his marriage with Nagarathnamma and they were living with the plaintiff and her husband Shivappa. They were looking after the property of Shivappa during his life time and a Will was also executed by Shivappa bequeathing the suit property to Nataraju.

It is their further contention that the said Nagarathanamma and Nataraju with the full knowledge of Shivappa and the plaintiff executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the first defendant on 03.03.1989 for an amount of Rs.7,000-00. The possession was also handed over to defendant No.1 under the said mortgage. The defendants claim that since then, the suit property is in their possession. They further contend that on 10.09.1989, Shivappa and Nataraju borrowed a sum of Rs.14,000-00 from the first defendant and executed an unregistered mortgage agreement and the possession of suit property was continued with the first defendant. It is also their contention that Nataraju was known to the public and also to all the persons concerned with the family of Shivappa dealing with all the affairs of family and even in the revenue records the name of Nataraju was entered vide MR No.54/91- 92 for the year 1992-93 onwards. This fact was within the knowledge of Shivappa and the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants claim that Nataraju was an ostensible owner of the suit property and in that capacity sold the suit property to defendant No.1 on 13.03.1995 with the full knowledge of plaintiff and her husband Shivappa u