JUDGMENT :

1. Regular Second Appeal No.100426/2014 is preferred by defendants/appellants and R.S.A.Crob.No.100012/2014 is filed by the plaintiffs/Cross Objectors being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, in R.A.No.41/2012 dated 01.04.2014 whereunder the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa in O.S.No.28/2008 dated 13.04.2012 is confirmed. It is prayed by the cross objectors that the Court below though decreed the suit, has not granted the possession of the suit schedule properties.

2. I have heard Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and the Sri B.Chidananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiffs.

3. Though these two cases are posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

4. The gist of the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs are the legal representatives of one R.Honnur Sab who instituted O.S.No.28/2008 stating that predecessor R.Honnur Sab was the absolute owner of the suit property bearing Sy.No.430-C/6-B measuring 5 acres situated in Muddatnur village. It is further alleged that the said property has been purchased through registered sale deed dated 21.03.1968 from one Sri G.Vishweshwara Rao and he also delivered the possession in favour of R.Honnur Sab. It is further stated that defendant No.1 by effecting mutation got entered his name on 03.12.2008 and the same came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and they also came to know that earlier there was a dispute in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.430-C/6-D and the said suit was between the plaintiffs predecessor and one Smt. Boppa Annapoornamma and her daughters. The said suit has been filed during 1968. Earlier those two suits were filed before the Prl. Munsiff, Ballari, and thereafter they were transferred to Munsiff and JMFC, Siruguppa and there they were tried under new number O.S.No.1/1981 and 2/1981. It is further stated that the said suits were decreed in favour of Smt. Boppa Annapoornamma and an Execution Case No.19/2004 was also filed and in the said Execution case, Commissioner was appointed to execute the sale deed but the said Commissioner returned the Commission warrant along with report stating that no such property is available in respect of Sy.No.430-C/6-D measuring 5 acres and consequently, the said Execution Petition came to be dismissed holding that parties have mistakenly shown wrong survey number. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have unnecessarily dragged the plaintiffs and the sale deed subsequently executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 17.12.2007 is not binding and it is without consideration. It is further stated that the sale deed earlier executed is subsisting and the agreement of sale in favour of Smt. Boppa Annapoornamma by Sri G. Vishweshwara Rao are illegal transactions as the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale transactions. It is further alleged that defendant No.2 alienated the suit property to defendant No.3 through registered sale deed dated 19.03.2010 and on the basis of the said sale deed, defendant No.3 got his name mutated and has raised a loan from State Bank of India, Sirigeri Branch.

5. On these grounds, plaintiffs prayed for declaration and possession of schedule properties. In pursuance of summons, defendants No.2 to 4 appeared and filed their written statement. Defendant No.1 did not appear and she had been placed exparte.

6. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not having any right and deceased defendant was the owner of the suit property prior to registration of the sale deed in his favour and he sold the suit property in favour of Smt. Boppa Annapoornamma and a suit was filed against the husband of 1st plaintiff i.e., deceased Honnur Sab. But, the suit property was wrongly shown and the husband of the 1st plaintiff was not al