1. The first and fourth defendants in O.S.No.199/1993 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Channarayapatna have come up in this second appeal impugning the divergent finding rendered in R.A.No.22/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Channarayapatna.

2. Admittedly, the original suit is initially for the relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property. Subsequently, the suit was amended to include the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. The suit schedule property is land bearing survey no. 127(new Sy No.186) of Doddamathigatta village, Dandiganahalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. The suit is filed on the basis that the plaintiff- D.S. Krishnappa is the absolute owner of the same having purchased it under registered sale deed dated 29.01.1992 from one S.M. Ramachandra. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was granted in favour of his predecessor in title S.M. Ramachandra in or around 1965 and subsequently the same is sold in his favour under the registered sale deed stated above. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants who have no manner of right, title and interest with reference to the suit schedule property, are trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

4. In the said suit, defendants 1 to 4 entered appearance through counsel and filed their written statement, at the first instance for the plaint which was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, additional written statements were filed on two occasions i.e., on 13.12.2000 and 13.02.2002, which are subsequent to amending the plaint for the relief of declaration. The sum and substance of the defence is that, the suit schedule property is not the property which is granted in favour of S.M. Ramachandra. He was never the owner of suit schedule land. The darkasth sketch which is relied upon in support of the plaint do not tally with the boundaries given in the schedule and the schedule as shown in the plaint and that of suit document sale deed and darkasth sketch are with reference to different boundaries and the claim of plaintiff that the suit schedule property was sold in his favour by S.M. Ramachandra and he was put in possession of the same is factually incorrect. In the said written statement, it was also stated that the defendants are grantees in respect of suit schedule land, which is granted in their favour. Initially, the written statement did not furnish full details regarding the grant which was made in their favour when it was filed on 01.10.1993. However, in the additional written statements filed by them, they have indicated that the defendants 1 to 3 and one Manjamma were granted three acres of land vide order No.238/76-77 and L.N.D.SR-42/76-77 in Sy. No.127 of Doddamathigatta and it is stated that the land which was granted in favour of Manjamma was sold by her in favour of Thimmegowda, son of fourth defendant and therefore, in the aforesaid manner, the defendants have become the owners of the aforesaid lands, which are granted to them and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same pursuant to the grant and the revenue records are also entered in their name.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit land belonged to one S.M. Ramchandra?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that S.M. Ramachandra sold the suit property to him?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment over the suit property?

4. Whether the defendant proves the grant of suit scheduled properties in favour of them?

5. To what order or decree? Additional issues:

1. Whether the defendant proves sale deed dated 29.1.1992 is a forged document as averred in para 2 of additi