1. This is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court by which it set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

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

3. The plaintiff Sri Siddeshwar is the adopted son of Kadayya. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing C.T.S. No. 2890, C.W. Ward No. 2, Hubli, Dharwad District, consisting of a house a open space which is surrounded by the properties which are more particularly described in item no. 1 of the plaint and for short hereinafter referred to as the suit property.

4. The case of the plaintiff is the suit property originally belonged to his adopted father Kadayya Channabasaiah Kadadevaramath. It was under his management. After his death the name of his wife Smt. Gurubasavva was entered in the city survey records. After the death of Smt. Gurubasavva the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendants are his near relatives. The defendants were residing in the house premises on the permission granted to them by Smt. Gurubasavva, his mother. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property. After the death of Gurubasavva, the defendants are continuing in possession of the suit property on the permission granted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was working in Police Department and he was transferred from place to place. During his absence from Hubli the defendants by giving false information to the City Survey Authorities got their name entered in respect of the suit property, which, he came to know recently. On coming to know of such mutation entry the plaintiff has withdrawn permission granted to the defendant and called upon him to deliver possession of the suit property. However, the defendant did not comply with the request and did not deliver possession. Therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for declaration and seeking possession treating the defendants as in unauthorized occupation of the suit property and also for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.100/- per month and cost of Rs.250/-.

5. During the pendency of the suit the second defendant, wife of the first defendant and the son of the first defendant were impleaded as parties. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 have filed a written statement denying all the allegations in the plaint. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Kadayya. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The defendants have filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 51/1988 on the file of Principal Civil Court. The case is set down for arguments. Therefore the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. Therefore the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 3 C.P.C. and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground. All the allegations in para no. 2 of the plaint are all false and the plaintiff has to prove lthe same. The Kadayya's elder brother was Veerabhadrayya. On his death as his children were all minors and as Kadayya and Veerabhadrayya were living together and Kadayya was the Manager of the joint family, the mutation entry was made in the name of Kadayya. However, neither Kadayya nor his wife Gurubasavva have any title to the suit property. The allegation that the defendants are in possession of the schedule property on the permission granted by Smt. Gurubasavva is without any substance. On her death, the defendants continued in possession on the permission granted by the plaintiff is also not admitted. Similarly during his absence from Hubli, the defendants got the mutation entries transferred to their name, is not correct. The plaintiff has not issued any notice before filing of the suit, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the plaint. The plaintiff has not paid requisite fee for declaration of his title to the suit property. The plaintiff in the s