JUDGMENT :

K.S. Mudagal, J. - These two appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in RANo. 137/2014 and RA No. 138/2014.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeals of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in OS No. 137/2006 and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in OS No. 1384/ 2007 and dismissed both suits.

3. OS No. 137/2006 was filed by one Doddanarasimhaiah and OS No. 1384/2007 was filed by one K.Govinda Reddy seeking declaration of their title to land bearing Survey No. 69/7 measuring 1 acre 101/2 guntas situate at Mylapura Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and for permanent injunction etc.

4. Doddanarasimhaiah sold the said property to K.Govinda Reddy under Ex.D9 registered sale deed dated 20.10.2005. K.Govinda Reddy claimed title by virtue of the said sale deed. Doddanarasimhaiah contended that his grandfather Narasimhaiah had two sons namely senior uncle Muniyappa and his father Ajjappa. He further contended that Survey No. 69/7 belonged to joint family of Narasimhaiah, Muniyappa and Ajjappa and Ajjappa predeceased Muniyappa. He further contended that since Muniyappa was senior most member of the family he was managing the affairs of the family and on his death, occupancy rights were granted to the son of Muniyappa under Ex.P3 the order of the land Tribunal.

5. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in OS No. 137/2006 were the wife and children of Narasimhaiah. According to the plaintiff-Doddanarasimhaiah grant was for the benefit of the family of Muniyappa and Ajjappa, after grant of land there was oral partition between Ajjappa and Narasimhaiah-the grantee. However, consequential revenue entries were not effected. He further contended that after death of Ajjappa, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 themselves gave application for change of khata in his favour and accordingly mutation were effected. Thus, he was absolute owner of the suit land.

6. Plaintiff Doddanarasimhaiah further contended that as he was exclusive owner of the property, he sold the same to K.Govinda Reddy plaintiff in OS No. 1384/2007. K.Govinda Reddy was arrayed as defendant No. 7 in OS No. 137/2006. He contended that defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are laying false claim over the said property. K.Govinda Reddy also filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the same grounds.

7. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement and that was adopted by defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6. They denied that Muniyappa and Ajjappa, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 constituted joint family and the property was the joint family property. They contended that there was partition between Muniyappa and Ajjappa about 60 years back and Narasimhaiah was absolute owner of the suit property and that was his self acquired property. They contended that revenue entries relied upon by plaintiffs were reversed in their appeals before the Assistant Commissioner and they were false and baseless documents.

8. On the basis of such pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues in both the suits:

Issues in OS No. 137/2006:

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner and in possession of the suit property?

(2) Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?

(4) What decree or order?

Issues in OS No. 1384/2007:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner in possession of the property?

(2) Whether the defendant No. 3 proves that they are owners in possession of the property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction as sought for?

(4) What Order or Decree?

9. OS No. 1384/2007 was consolidated in OS No. 137/2006 and common evidence was recorded. Plaintiff in OS No. 137/2006 was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Venkatesh S/o. late Narasimhaiah was examined as DW.1. By the time t