1. Respondents herein were defendants in an original suit bearing O.S. 196/1990, which was pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Raibag. Appellants were plaintiffs in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking before the trial Court.

2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were minors at the time of filing suit. One Yellappa is the father of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3. Suit schedule properties measuring 1.14 acres in Sy.No.l9/lA/lB/3 and 5 guntas in Sy.No. 19/1A/1B./4 of Khanagal Village, Raibag were the ancestral property of plaintiffs and Yellappa. The said Yellappa sold these properties in favour of three members belonging to the family of Jodatti through a registered sale deed in the year 1983 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Later on, the purchasers i.e., the members of the Jodatti family sold the same in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 through a registered sale deed in the year December 1984.

3. According to plaintiffs, Yellappa had no legal necessity to alienate the property and there was no pressure on the estate of joint family to alienate the property in favour of members of the Jodatti family. According to the plaintiffs, they are in lawful possession of these properties and at no point of time, possession was handed over to Jodatti family, who are alleged to have sold the same to defendant Nos.3 and 4, who claim title strongly on the basis of the deed stated to have been executed by Jodatti family in their favour. Hence, they had sought for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. Defendants had filed detailed written statement denying all the material evidence. According to them, the properties in question were sold during the minority of plaintiff Nos. i and 2 for the benefit of the joint family. Therefore alienation made binds them. It is further pleaded that alienation made by the Jodatti family in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is also valid and hence, they are in lawful possession. According to the defendants, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in the light of not making the members of the Jodatti family as parties to suit. It is further pleaded that suit is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration to the effect that alienation so made in favour of the members of the Jodatti family and subsequent alienation do not bind the plaintiffs.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings following issues had been framed:

a) Whether plaintiffs proves that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit property in jointly since long up till now?

b) Whether he further proves that defendants are obstructing and disturbing the actual peaceful and exclusive and lawful possession enjoyment and wahiwat of the suit property by the plaintiffs?

c) What relief and decree?

6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.3 is examined as PW-1 and in all 3 exhibits have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, Sudkaram Bhimappa Naik has been examined as DW-1 and 6 exhibits have been marked.

7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court chose to dismiss the suit, as against, a regular appeal was filed under Section 96 of CPC in R.A.26/1999. Several grounds had been urged in the appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC. On hearing the arguments, the regular appeal is allowed in its entirety and the suit has been dismissed and relief of injunction is set aside. It is this divergent finding which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

8. My learned predecessor has framed following substantial question of law for consideration :

"Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to the materials on record and is perverse and arbitrary?"

9. The learned Counsel for the parties have submitted the arguments at length.

Reasons:

10. Evidence includes documentary evidence. Suit schedule pr