A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. Plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 93/2003, which was pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Jamakhandi is before this Court by means of an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed on 18.01.2005. Respondents herein were the defendants 1 to 10 in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court. Plaintiff chose to file a suit for the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of 7 acres of lands in R.S. No. 69/1+2/1 of Jana-wad village, Jamkhandi Taluk and also to declare that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 11/1994 dated 27.06.2002 is null and void and it does not bind him and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff, as put forth in the trial Court was that the suit property in question belonged to Adiveppa, the defendant No. 1 and that Adviveppa had got this property at a partition that took place between himself and his mother Tangewa and other members of the joint family. According to the plaintiff, a suit had been filed in O.S. No. 66/1990 by his mother Tangewwa against him and others seeking partition and separate possession of the joint family properties, which are as follows:

SI. No.	R.S.No.	Area A-G
1	196/1+2A	6-38
2	233/1	15-26
3	233/2	15-26
4	196/1+2B	06-39
5	69/1+2/1	07-00
6	69/1+2/2	09-06

3. According to the plaintiff, 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 69/1+2/1 i.e., item No. 5 mentioned above was allotted to Adiveppa and therefore he had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is stated to have purchased the schedule property from defendants No. 1 - Adiveppa for a total consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1995. Since then he is stated to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants/respondents started interfering with his lawful possession on the basis of a suit filed in O.S. No. 11/1994 for partition and separate possession. According to him, the said suit filed in O.S. No. 11/1994 is a collusive suit got filed by his vendor Sri. Adiveppa himself through his son and wife and therefore, it does not bind on him.

4. Defendant No. 1-Adiveppa the vendor of the plaintiff did not chose to file written statement. On the other hand, his legally wedded wife defendant No. 3-Hanamawwa and his son defendant No. 2-Anilkumar chose to file the written statement. Defendant No. 2-Anilkumar chose to file a written statement, which came to be adopted by defendant No. 3 by means of a memo.

5. Defendant No. 2 has denied all the material averments found in the plaint and has called upon the plaintiff to strictly prove the contents of the same. According to him, the suit itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the defendants are in possession of the schedule property and that he has no right to purchase the joint family property because defendants 1 to 3 have 1/3 share each. According to him, the judgment and decree drawn in O.S. No. 11/1994 binds the plaintiff. Suit is stated to have been filed with a mala fide intention to make unlawful gain. With these pleadings, he had requested the Court to dismiss the suit. Other defendants had not chosen to file any written statement. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed.

i) Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner in lawful possession of suit land R.S. No. 69/1+2/1, extent 7 Ac. 00 Gs as on the date of suit?

ii) Does he prove that judgment and decree of O.S. No. 11/1994 on the file of this court is null, void, bogus, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiff?

iii) Whether defendants 2 and 3 proves that decree of O.S. No. 11/1994 is binding upon the plaintiff an