JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

These two appeals are filed by plaintiff in O.S.No.1812/2003 and also the first defendant in O.S.No.524/2004 being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by him in O.S.No.1812/2003 and decreeing the suit filed against him in O.S.No.524/2004 vide judgment dated 29.02.2012 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH 16), Bengaluru.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to in their original name in order to avoid confusion.

3. Brief facts of the case are: The plaintiff in O.S.No.1812/2003 is one Sri D.Lingamurthy who is also the brother of defendant Sri P.Rajagopala. He filed the suit for declaration to declare him as absolute owner of the property which is described in the schedule to the said suit. His brother P.Rajagopal along with his wife Smt.Bhageerathi has filed suit in O.S.No.524/2004 for declaration and injunction that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property which has been described in the said suit.

4. Sri D.Lingamurthy who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1812/2003 claims that he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Ramachandra on 24.05.2000. It is further contended that he is running the Floor mill in the suit schedule property since 1992. P.Rajagopala is his elder brother. He appeared and filed written statement stating that his wife is the owner of the suit schedule property and the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

5. P. Rajgopala in his suit in O.S.No.524/2004 sought declaration that he himself and his wife as owner of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the brother of D.Lingamurthy viz., Shamanna is also made as party. In O.S.No.524/2004 the defendant i.e., Lingamurthy and his brother Shamanna have contended that the sale deed executed by the third defendant is for valuable sale consideration and they have denied the title of their brother Rajagopal. Both of them have contributed and paid the sale consideration equally. The first plaintiff i.e. Rajagopal was put in possession of his share and these two brothers were put in possession with respect to each of their shares. The said site was divided into two pieces. The first half fell in the share of first plaintiff i.e., P.Rajagopal and the other half fell to the share of Lingamurthy and Shamanna. Accordingly, Rajagopal, Lingamurthy and Shamanna are in occupation of their respective shares. The contention of Rajagopal that he has purchased the said property from his own funds has been denied as false.

6. The Court below in view of the pleadings of both the parties framed the following issues: O.S.No.1812/2003

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

(ii) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is only the licensee in possession ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction sought for ? O.S.No.524/2004

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the schedule property by evicting the defendant Nos. 1 and 2?

3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that Sale Deed executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on 24.5.2000 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that Release Deed referred in the Sale Deed is null and void?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profit for the wrongful occupation of the defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property?

6. Whether the 1st defendant proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

7. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?

8. What Order or Decree?

7. Both the suits were clubbed together and common evidence has been recorded. The p