Anand Byrareddy, J.—These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants are common. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court in narrating the facts of the case and in the course of the judgment.

The appellants had filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 572/1984. The suit was for the relief of permanent injunction. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were the sons of one Kenchappa. The suit schedule property had fallen to the share of their father at a partition between their father and his elder brother, Lenkappa, as on 4.7.1947. The property which fell to their father's share was shown delineated by the letters BCDEFHJKB, in a sketch annexed to the plaint. The house in which the plaintiffs were residing was shown by the letters 'CMNJNC'. There was said to be a cart shed appurtenant to the house, right from their father's time. The same was identified by the letters 'MOPQ'. The same measured 12' x 12'.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that from the year 1947, their father and after him the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession of the suit property. It was their complaint that the defendant was trying to interfere in their possession. This was in respect of the area marked with the letters 'MODEFQM'. It was claimed that the area marked with the letters 'EFPQR' was the only passage available for the ingress and egress to their house. It was alleged that the defendant was trying to trespass over the same and construct a building thereon. It was further alleged that the defendant had even attempted to demolish the cart shed as on 24.2.1984. This was the background in which the suit came to be filed.

2. The defendant had filed written statement to deny the plaint averments. It was on the other hand asserted that the defendant was the owner of the portion of the suit property marked with the letters 'MODEFQ'. This was purchased by the father of the defendant under a sale deed dated 8.2.1953. After his death there was said to have been a partition amongst the defendant and his brothers and the above portion had fallen to the share of the defendant. It was vacant land and he had applied to the local authority for permission to construct a building. The plaintiffs are said to have objected to the same. The authorities had then conducted an enquiry and having found that the defendant as the owner was entitled to construct the building had granted license and sanction of the plan for construction. The said order had been challenged by the plaintiffs in a revision petition and the same had been dismissed. It is claimed that it is thereafter that the plaintiffs had encroached on the suit property and constructed the cart shed. It was hence contended that the plaintiffs had come to court by suppressing the true facts.

The court below had framed the following issues:

O.S. No. 572/1984

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of the schedule property, particularly the disputed portion marked by letters MODEFQM whereupon the cart shed is situated?

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that defendant is illegally and unlawfully trying to trespass on the disputed portion of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for in the plaint?

4. What order or decree?

The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The same having been challenged in appeal before this court in RFA 481/2001, the same was allowed and the matter remanded with a direction to appoint a court commissioner to inspect and report on the actual physical position. It is after the report of the Commissioner so appointed was brought on record that the court had held as follows:--

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed.

The defendant is hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the cart shed measuring 12 x 12 feet only indicated with letter MOPQM in the sketch.

It is that which is under challenge in this appe