JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District, (hereinafter referred to as the “first Appellate Court”) in R.A.No.98/2009 dated 10.06.2011 for having allowed the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kadur, (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) in O.S.No.315/2007 dated 09.11.2009.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs filed a suit to declare that they are the absolute owners in possession of suit schedule property measuring 3 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.13 at Hosahally Village, Birur Hobli, Kadur Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”) contending that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs which was acquired by the husband of first plaintiff and father of other plaintiffs namely C.L.Shivarudrappa, in the year 1955. It is further alleged that late K.T.Rangadas and Pandith Basavalingappa have started an organization in the name of “Bhavasara Kshatriya Mandali, Birur” and the members were joined by contributing funds to the said Mandali. The husband of the first plaintiff approached K.T.Rangadas and Pandith Basavaligappa for hand loan of Rs.1,000/and as a security, the suit schedule property has been pledged. However, at the request of Basavalingappa and K.T.Rangadas, a nominal sale deed was executed on 05.07.1961. Though, the sale deed was executed, but the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property even after the death of C.L.Shivarudrappa. In the year 1995, the C.L.Shivarudrappa repaid the loan of Rs.1,000/and Rs.2,000/towards the interest and requested the said Mandali to execute the reconveyance deed to the plaintiffs, but they refused to do it. Hence, the cause of action arose on 17.09.2007 when defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

5. In pursuance to the notice, defendants appeared before the trial Court. Defendant No.4 filed the written statement by admitting the case of the plaintiffs and also admitted that the sale deed dated 05.07.1961 was a nominal sale deed and he has stated that he is ready to execute the document in favour of the plaintiffs and prayed for decreeing the suit.

6. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 adopted the same by filing a memo. Defendant No.3 denied the averments made in the plaint as false and also denied the starting of Mandali and also lending of Rs.1,000/- to C.L.Shivarudrappa as hand loan and also denied the fact that the sale deed is nominal one and also the repayment made in the year 1995. Further, it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession of southern half portion of the suit schedule property and northern half portion is in possession of defendant No.4 and contended that the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.4 trying to dispossess defendant Nos.1 to 3 from southern portion of the suit schedule property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. On the basis of rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

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

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed executed in favour of late Pandit Basavalingappa and K.T.Rangadas dated 5-7-1961 is a nominal sale deed?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession over the schedule properties as on the date of suit?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?

5. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that this Court has no pecu