RATHNAKALA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2006 in R.A. No. 1231/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sira, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25. If. 1997 in O.S.No. 198/1991 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sira.

2. By the impugned judgment, the suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 198/91 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Sira, is decreed and confirmed in appeal.

3. To put the facts in a nutshell, the respondent (plaintiff) herein filed a suit against the appellant (defendant) for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant and his men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The claim of the plaintiff was, the suit property is his ancestral property and he is in un-interfered possession and enjoyment of the same, and the defendant having no right, title or interest is interfering with his possession.

4. The defendant contested the suit and denied the title of the plaintiff to the disputed property. His defence was, in collusion with the plaintiff, the Revenue Authorities entered plaintiff's name in column Nos. 9 and 12(2) of the Pahani for the year 1975-76 in respect of the suit property. In this regard, there were proceedings before the Revenue Authorities which ended up in the plaintiff filing Writ Petition before the High Court in W.P.No.18715/84 which came to be dismissed. Suppressing the above facts, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. Among others, one of the issues was about suit being barred by limitation. However, this issue was not treated as preliminary issue. After a full fledged trial, the suit came to be decreed by answering the issues in favour of the plaintiff. With regard to the question of limitation, the Trial Court referred to the history that initially plaintiff filed the suit before Munsiff & JMFC, Sira, in O.S. No. 2/1985 and the plaint was ordered to be returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaintiff was directed to present the suit before competent Court vide order dated 15.3.1989. But the plaintiff presented the plaint before Civil Judge Court, Madhugiri only on 2.3.1991 and it was registered as O.S. No. 198/91. Due to enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) by Civil Court Amendment Act returned the plaint with a direction to present the suit before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sira and thus the suit O.S.No.198/91 came to be registered before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sira. The defence that the earlier proceedings in O.S. No. 8/91 does not amount to continuation of proceedings of O.S. No. 2/15 and was not brushed aside, thus answered against the defendant.

6. Now this appeal is admitted to adjudicate the following question of law.

1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

2. Whether the proceedings of O.S.No. 198/1991 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sira, can be considered as the continuation of the O.S. No. 2/1985 on the file of the same Court?

3. Whether the lower appellate court was justified in condoning the delay?

4. Whether the courts below were justified in acting on the revenue entries?

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants Sri.Chithappa submits that the respondent did not choose to take back the plaint and present it before the court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit despite there being pleading in the written statement that suit was under valued. The Munsiff Court, Sira framed issues, recorded evidence on Issue No. 5, heard arguments and passed order on 15.3.1989 holding that the Court has no jurisdiction and directed the plaintiff to take return of the plaint and to present it before proper court. The respondent/plaintiff took return of plaint on 2.3.1991 and presented it before the Court of Civil Judge at Madhugi