The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.334/1987 is a 'judgment in rem' binding on the first defendant. The suit filed on 6.9.1995 is well within time, period of limitation being 12 years from the date of attaining the majority. The lower appellate court has committed an error in applying Articles 56 to 58 instead of Article 109 of the Limitation Act. The lower appellate court has erred in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court.

This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiffs being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2011 in R.A. No.257/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The lower appellate allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 in O.S. No.25/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Anekal. The trial court had decreed the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by father of the plaintiffs dated 15.4.1982 is invalid in terms of the judgment passed in O.S. No.334/87 and subsequent sale deed dated 16.7.1987 executed by K.L. Malhothra and another in favour of Mohammed Iqbal and sale deed dated 19.8.1987 executed by Mohammed Iqbal in favour of the first defendant is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs' rights in the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and their family members are all having peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they are cultivating the suit schedule properties. Their father has conveyed the schedule properties to one K.L. Malhothra S/o Late D R Malhothra and Ms. Aruna Shekuja D/o D W Shekuja, by a registered sale deed dated 15.4.1982. The plaintiffs were minors when the sale took place. Hence the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.334/87 that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties and the sale deed made by their father in favour of purchasers is null and void. The said suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1992 declaring that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the sale deed dated 15.4.1982 executed by the plaintiffs' father in favour of purchasers is invalid and not binding on them.

4. It is further stated, the purchasers K.L. Malhothra and another conveyed the schedule properties to one Mohammed Iqbal on 16.7.1987. On coming to know the said fact, the plaintiffs filed application in O.S. No.334/87 to implead the said Mohammed Iqbal. Accordingly, he was made one of the defendants in the said suit.

5. Subsequent to the judgment dated 30.10.1982 the plaintiffs came to know that the said Mohammed Iqbal further conveyed the schedule properties in favour of the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 19.8.1987. The application filed by the plaintiffs before the Tahsildar for change of khata came to be rejected on the ground that the first defendant was not a party to the earlier suit. It is stated, khata of the suit schedule properties cannot be changed in favour of the plaintiffs, though the plaintiffs are entitled to get the khata of the schedule properties in their favour. The defendant taking undue advantage of sale deed dated 19.8.1987 and also pahanies is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties. The defendant is posing as an absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on the basis of the defective sale deed. The sale deed executed by their father was invalid as per the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1992 in O.S. No.334/87 and the subsequent sale deed is also invalid in the eye of law and subsequent sale deed becomes infructuous and ineffective and not binding on the right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to get khata of the schedule properties in their favour. The defendant also contended that he is not a party in O.S. No.334/87 and the defendant is not allowing to change the khata in their names. The defendant has no manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule proper