A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 156/1998 which was pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Nanjangud and confirmed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud in R.A.73/2002. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were the defendants in the said suit. Concurrent findings of the Courts below are called in question in this appeal. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

2. Plaintiff chose to file a suit for the relief of declaration to the effect that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are the joint owners of the land measuring 29.7 guntas of land in suit Sy. No. 150/1 of Konanapura Village, Nanjanagud Taluk and consequently to declare that the sale deed dated 23.4.1998 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 does not bind the plaintiff and also award cost.

3. One person by name Subba Setty was the father of the plaintiff and defendants. According to the plaintiff, the entire extent of land in Sy. No. 150/1 measures 33 guntas and out of this, the area measuring 20x20 yards only i.e., 03.03 guntas was sold by his father in favour of his daughter, defendant No. 1 through registered sale deed dated 7.12.1970 and his father was in possession of the remaining extent of land in Sy. No. 150/1 till his death. According to the plaintiff, extent of land sold by his father Subba Setty in favour of his daughter defendant No. 1 was only 20x20 yards and nothing beyond that. According to the plaintiff, name of defendant No. 1 incorporated in the revenue records to the entire extent of 33 guntas of land does not have any legal effect.

4. Defendants have chosen to file a detailed joint written statement. According to them, entire 33 guntas of land was sold by Subba Setty in favour of defendant No. 1 through a registered sale deed dated 7.12.1970 and nothing remained in the said Sy. No. 150/1. On the basis of the above sale deed, name of defendant No. 1 came to be incorporated as kathedar and she was the owner and in lawful possession of the same. She is stated to have sold the entire extent of 33 guntas of land in favour of her brother, defendant No. 2 through registered sale deed dated 23.4.1998 for valid consideration and she is stated to have put him in possession of 33 guntas of land. According to them, suit is not maintainable either in law or facts. According to the defendants, defendant No. 1 purchased the entire extent of 33 guntas in Sy. No. 150/1 from her father through registered sale deed dated 7.12.1970. With these pleadings, defendants have requested the court to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he and the 2nd defendant are the owners of land in Sy. No. 150/1 measuring 29.7 guntas?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 23.04.1998 is void to the extent of selling of 29.7 guntas of land in Sy. No. 150/1 is concerned?

3. To what relief the parties are entitled?

Additional Issue:

Whether the defendants prove the 1st defendant purchased the entire 33 guntas in Sy. No. 150/1 from her father through a registered sale deed dated 07.12.1970?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and two other witnesses have been examined as PWs-2 & 3, and 3 documents have been marked as Exs.P-1 to 3. On behalf of the defendants, both the defendants have been examined as DW-1 and 2 and one more witness has been examined as DW-3 and has produced and got marked 19 documents as Exs.D-1 to 19.

7. Ultimately, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has chosen to answer issues 1 & 2 and additional issue in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit vide order dated 10.4.2002, as against which, an appeal was filed under Section 96 of CPC in R.A.73/2002. On the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the