The legal representatives of original plaintiff in OS.No.104/1982 (old No.215/1968) have come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent findings of both the courts below in rejecting the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property.

2. In this appeal original defendant Nos.2 to 9 in the trial court are not parties. Therefore, what is really to be decided is, whether the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff claims the relief of declaration and title is available to him as descendant of original owner – Danada Muniga or the 1st defendant has secured title to the said property from the original descendants of Danada Muniga i.e., defendants 2 to 9.

3. Admittedly, this second appeal has a chequered history with reference to title of land bearing Sy.No.90 of Sathanur village, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas (1 acre 26 guntas is ain land and 1 gunta is kharab land). The case of the plaintiff in the court below is that the entire extent of 1 acre 27 guntas belongs to his grand father Danada Muniga, which was succeeded by plaintiff’s father Giriga @ Chikka Giriga and subsequently, it has come to plaintiff by way of succession. So far as 1st defendant in the court below is concerned, he is the purchaser of entire extent of 1 acre 26 guntas of ain land in said survey number under two sale deeds executed in his favour, one in the year 1967 for 16 guntas and another for 1 acre 9 guntas in the year 1968 from defendant Nos.2 to 9 in the original suit. The defendants 2 to 9 in the original suit also claim title to the suit property on the ground that they are the lineal descendants of Thimmaraya s/o Giriga.

4. With this, what is seen is, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 9 are claiming title to same property on the basis that it is succeeded by them. The contesting 1st defendant in the court below is trying to establish the suit property as his absolute property by virtue of two sale deeds executed in his favour by his vendors, who according to him are the original owners of the property. Both the parties in the court below are not in a position to place any document of title to trace their title to the property in question. Therefore, what is left to be decided by this Court is their title to the suit property based on the revenue documents which are relied upon by them, which dates back to 1920’s and 1930’s.

5. In this background, in the suit filed by the plaintiff in OS.No.215/1968, the following three issues are framed:

“1. Does the plaintiff prove that he was the owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Does the plaintiff prove that he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?

3. Is the plaintiff entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?”

6. In the said suit, the plaintiff adduced evidence by examining 5 witnesses and relied upon in all 11 documents, which are mainly revenue documents. So far as defendants are concerned, they examined in all 3 witnesses and relied upon 13 documents, out of which 2 are the registered sale deeds.

7. The evidence adduced by plaintiff as PW.5 and that of the other 4 witnesses PWs.1 to 4 is to the effect that the suit property belonged to plaintiff’s grand father – Danada Muniga, who is resident of Sathanur village; that said Danada Muniga had a son by name Giriga @ Chikka Giriga and his wife is one Thoti Akkayyamma; that plaintiff is the son of Giriga @ Chikka Giriga and Thoti Akkayyamma; that plaintiff is the lineal descendant of Danada Muniga, as such, the land which was registered in the revenue records in the name of Danada Muniga is succeeded by him. The witnesses who are examined by plaintiff are none other than the villagers and owners of adjacent lands, who stood by him in the said proceedings.

8. Per contra, the evidence adduced on behalf of defendants viz., 1st defendant as DW.2 and two other defendants as DWs.1 and 3 is that the property in question is the family property of defenda